The Marijuana Debate
- Thread starter TLDR20
- Start date
JHD
Member
What about the all time romantic favorite, (Give me) Weed Instead of Roses? Yes, it really is a song.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,237
@JBS did you read the articles about studies you posted? Because you didn't post the link to peer reviewed studies or even scientific papers, but rather journalistic interpretation of scientific papers, all of which had flaws. Your first link says this, which speaks to correlation rather than causation:
"For one, it involved a small number of subjects. Also, five of the 14 subjects with heavy cannabis use also had a history of alcohol abuse, which may have contributed an effect. Also, it is possible that the brain abnormalities may have predisposed the subjects to drug dependence, rather than drug usage causing the brain abnormalities."
So all there evidence is not causative....Every one of the articles you posted says the same thing, the samples are too small and the data is too preliminary.
Lastly again the legal age for using the drug is 21 and like has been pointed out time and again, there is ZERO evidence to support damage to the brain of an adult, and in fact the evidence shows that there is zero damage done to a fully formed brain.
As to the last part, about tobacco and alcohol not having the backing of Hollywood, have you not watched basically any movie ever? The movie that launched Jonah Hill( who you pointed out) was Superbad, the plot of which revolved around kids(high schoolers) trying to buy alcohol so they could have sex with girls at a party.
"For one, it involved a small number of subjects. Also, five of the 14 subjects with heavy cannabis use also had a history of alcohol abuse, which may have contributed an effect. Also, it is possible that the brain abnormalities may have predisposed the subjects to drug dependence, rather than drug usage causing the brain abnormalities."
So all there evidence is not causative....Every one of the articles you posted says the same thing, the samples are too small and the data is too preliminary.
Lastly again the legal age for using the drug is 21 and like has been pointed out time and again, there is ZERO evidence to support damage to the brain of an adult, and in fact the evidence shows that there is zero damage done to a fully formed brain.
As to the last part, about tobacco and alcohol not having the backing of Hollywood, have you not watched basically any movie ever? The movie that launched Jonah Hill( who you pointed out) was Superbad, the plot of which revolved around kids(high schoolers) trying to buy alcohol so they could have sex with girls at a party.
Last edited:
The initial claim was regarding "pop culture" not some random old guy singing about weed while playing a guitar.
Love you Chop!!
@SkrewzLoose , Jim Stafford is not some random old guy. You damn kids today. No respect.
He's also not popular. Sheesh, Blondie!!
love ya!!
love ya!!You are just a kid too!He's also not popular. Sheesh, Blondie!!
So, I have been off the grid for a bit.
This means, for this focus groups, people that were intoxicated displayed the same traits as those that had hippocampal damage. Nothing about permanaent brain damage. Unless you are a chemobiologist, a neurosccientist, or a psychologist, you don't get to say your above, bolded, red statement.
@TLDR20 stated it already- but no, you haven't proved it harmed the brain the way you said it does. And yes, there are some studies out there that have shown what seems to be harm to the brain from marijuana smoking- but words have meaning. Your challenge is this, and don't be mad at me, for you're the one that laid the gauntlet. You posted 4 articles that referenced small group retrospective studies- find me 8 prospective peer reviewed studies that state plainly, preferably in the abstract, that marijuana causes brain damage. For instance- here is a link to an actual study. Read the abstract. It says, "Results are discussed in terms of cannabinoid actions on hippocampal functioning and, in general, support the hypothesis that the action of marihuana in the brain may focus in the hippocampal region and produce behavioral changes similar to that resulting from traumatic injury or removal of the region.
This means, for this focus groups, people that were intoxicated displayed the same traits as those that had hippocampal damage. Nothing about permanaent brain damage. Unless you are a chemobiologist, a neurosccientist, or a psychologist, you don't get to say your above, bolded, red statement.
Hard to respond here without going 100% dickhead status. I'll try.
It saddens me that I have to tell another grown man that he can't just say some crap he read on the internet and pass it off as fact. It saddens me that we still live in a society where someone forms an opinion about an entire population of people from a limited group (usually 1 or 2) of people in high school and then apply that pedantic, narrow, highly illogical stereotype to that population later in life, as if that opinion is anything more than your attempt as a teenager to reconcile something you had never encountered before. Yes, we all remember 2 or 3 pot heads from high school/college/now. That fact has no bearing on the conversation now.
And lastly- you don't speak for "we", as in "why we shouldn't smoke weed." No one is asking you to smoke weed. I won't be smoking it when it's legalized either, because I will have a security clearance and won't be allowed. But just because I won't be partaking in it doesn't mean I get to apply my personal feelings to national legislature.
This is the last time I will be engaging with you specifically on this topic. And it's for reasons like the quoted.
You show me where anyone on this forum, and I mean @TLDR20 , myself, @SkrewzLoose who occupy the counter point position here- have said anything even closely resembling your position "A". That's freaking ludicrous, and I am done with that nonsense. I want to be clear- I am not speaking as mod on the board here, this conversation is great and I think it should keep going. I just won't be involved in it as another dude.
You're out of your lane, arguing from authority, creating straw men, paraphrasing and either purposefully or unknowingly missing the entire point of a conversation to further your own personal beliefs, moving the goalposts, and feigning outrage under the guise of protecting adolescents from the evils of marijuana.
I get it. We all get it. You don't like weed. You don't think it should be legalized. Write your congressman and your senator. Fight the good fight.
Brill
SOF Support
One serious side effect that NOBODY has talked about:
Smoking weed, or consuming other drugs (e.g. Cocaine) MAY, in fact, cause the user to become President of The United States or if HEAVILY abused, a member of Congress.
FACT!
Smoking weed, or consuming other drugs (e.g. Cocaine) MAY, in fact, cause the user to become President of The United States or if HEAVILY abused, a member of Congress.
FACT!
JHD
Member
I don't necessarily disagree with making it legal, provided it is treated in a similar fashion to alcohol and cigarettes. Tax it, control it, keep away from kids, and hopefully reduce the illegal cash flow associated with the illegal activity. For the record, I never smoked it and never had the desire to, but I probably inhaled enough at various parties, etc., to possibly count.
I am curious to see how it will play out in small town America. I grew up in a rural area where weed was plentiful and cheap. It was everywhere when I was in high school, and still is, now along with heavy meth use.
Even if states in The South legalize it, I am not sure much will change from the way it is now and has been, historically. I see the biggest impact of legalization occurring in larger cities, but wonder if the stigma surrounding the use of Mary Jane will allow the pot growers to come out of the dark, so to speak.
I am curious to see how it will play out in small town America. I grew up in a rural area where weed was plentiful and cheap. It was everywhere when I was in high school, and still is, now along with heavy meth use.
Even if states in The South legalize it, I am not sure much will change from the way it is now and has been, historically. I see the biggest impact of legalization occurring in larger cities, but wonder if the stigma surrounding the use of Mary Jane will allow the pot growers to come out of the dark, so to speak.
Lol, holy crap!
Again, posting from phone with time demands atm.
1. Yes I read the links. Thoroughly. The studies are contained as links in the article.
B. The studies have varying numbers of pparticipants. Some were of 18 or 20 people. Another was of more than 1, 100 participants if I recall correctly.
III. PLEASE take it easy killers; nothing I posted was meant to be insulting. The studies I linked to are varied because I thought referring to a variety of studies would be helpful. One of them is even a study on rats, rather than humans. I saw them, I read most of them in whole or at least the majority of them, and posted for all to see.
I didn't say ANYWHERE above that I PROVED anything, only that there is a body of clinical evidence from legitimate credentialed research entities providing evidence for my views.
More to follow.
Again, posting from phone with time demands atm.
1. Yes I read the links. Thoroughly. The studies are contained as links in the article.
B. The studies have varying numbers of pparticipants. Some were of 18 or 20 people. Another was of more than 1, 100 participants if I recall correctly.
III. PLEASE take it easy killers; nothing I posted was meant to be insulting. The studies I linked to are varied because I thought referring to a variety of studies would be helpful. One of them is even a study on rats, rather than humans. I saw them, I read most of them in whole or at least the majority of them, and posted for all to see.
I didn't say ANYWHERE above that I PROVED anything, only that there is a body of clinical evidence from legitimate credentialed research entities providing evidence for my views.
More to follow.
One of the more recent Jonah Hill flicks has him and 20 other comedians all extolling the virtues of getting high;
*This Is The End*2013*
D
Deleted member 2517
Guest
Have you seen the movie? They consume copious amounts of alcohol too. And how can you say they don't promote alcohol or tobacco? Have you heard of the Hangover trilogy? Old School? Sideways? Thank You for Smoking? Those are just movies that have their entire plots based around positive depictions of alcohol or tobacco. That isn't even considering that almost every movie rated over PG depicts either alcohol use or characters smoking.
I wonder if any studies were done about alcohol or tobacco use in film?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/10/health/smoking-trigger-rating-movie/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802064/
Surely these legal for adults but illegal and harmful behaviors aren't seen in children's movie?
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=189199
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/10/health/smoking-trigger-rating-movie/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802064/
Surely these legal for adults but illegal and harmful behaviors aren't seen in children's movie?
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=189199
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,241
But they now edit out Winston Churchill smoking a stogie. 
Putting aside the "have you read your own post/link/seen the movie" questions, yes ffs I have. And yes they all glorify alcohol TOO, but save the hangover trilogy, alcohol isn't the focal point of these movies like weed has started to be more prominently showcased.
I think you've read my post differently than intended if you think I'm somehow defending Hollywood for their responsible portrayal of alcohol. This thread isn't about alcohol. Similarly we could talk about firearms and how their irresponsible portrayal in film, but again the topic would spiral out of control. I'm making the case that weed has undergone a tremendous swell of support in popular culture as has the pro-weed literature arguing for its harmless nature and the need for legalization. Smoking isn't cool anymore and old conservative fogies argued against it before it was cool to be against it.
I think you've read my post differently than intended if you think I'm somehow defending Hollywood for their responsible portrayal of alcohol. This thread isn't about alcohol. Similarly we could talk about firearms and how their irresponsible portrayal in film, but again the topic would spiral out of control. I'm making the case that weed has undergone a tremendous swell of support in popular culture as has the pro-weed literature arguing for its harmless nature and the need for legalization. Smoking isn't cool anymore and old conservative fogies argued against it before it was cool to be against it.
I'm not sure why you keep pushing for the pop-culture debate. It's purely subjective and it's not quantifiable at all. Not to mention that all of your examples have been quickly debunked. Both alcohol and drugs (including, but not limited to weed) have been a part of pop-culture for decades. That's why it's pop-culture. I'm not going to rattle off a list of songs and movies that support that statement because I think we all could name most of them. But as for a RECENT "swell of support" for weed Vs booze, it's just not there.
Okay, so which is it? Is it "purely subjective", and "not quantifable? or is it "non existent"? I've seen marijuana popularized in film and pop culture starting with Cheech and Chong, up through a few dozen Snoop videos through the 1990's (he went quadruple Platinum in 1994 alone, and sold tens of millions of albums since then), we all laughed about weed's effects in Friday with Ice Cube, listened to it joked about it (and other drugs) with Chappelle, and seen it presented increasingly more mainstream right up through the present.
Actors, comedians, celebrities who have come out openly and publicly in the past 10-15 years actively in favor of legalized marijuana:
Morgan Freeman
Rihanna
Bill Maher
Andrew Cuomo
Ben Jealous
Danny Devito
Jon Stewart
Rosario Dawson
Michael Moore
Bryan Cranston
Howard Dean
Richard Branson
Corey Booker
Bradd Pitt
Chris Hayes- Anchor on MSNBC
Jack Black
Chuck Schumer
Will I. Am
Piers Morgan
Miley Cyrus
Elton John
Quinten Tarantino
Benicio Del Toro
Lady Gaga
Andy Milonakis
Chris Rock
Jason Sodeikis
Seth Rogan
Elijah Wood
Deepok Chopra
Salma Hayek
Russell Simmons
Rachel Maddow
John Legend
Cenk Uyger
Lawrence O'Donnel (MSNBC)
Melissa Harris Perry- (MSNBC)
Mick Jagger
REDMAN
Jimmy Kimmel
Stephen Colbert
Dog The Bounty Hunter
Ron Paul
Joe Rogan
Carlos Santana
Dave Matthews
Scott Weiland
Elliott Spitzer
Alan Colmes
Adam Corolla
Susan Sarandon
George Lopez
Michael Douglas
Warren G
Oliver Stone
Phillip Seymour Hoffman
Billy Joe Armstrong
Snoop Dogg
Montell Williams
Meghan McCain
Big Boi
Al Sharpton
Jesse Ventura
Howard Stern
Danny Glover
Rand Paul
Maxine Waters
LZ Granderson (ESPN personality)
Woody Harrelson
Megan Fox
The President of The United States
etc., etc., etc.,
There are so many others, and you can't say these people are not shaping the public discourse for the past 20 years or so. ONCE AGAIN, I'm not saying alcohol isn't bad for you, smoking, etc. I'm making the case that marijuana has seen a surge of support in recent years in pop culture, and the drumbeat has become so strong, so as to drown out the (relatively few) legitimate studies that show it damages the brain. Further, I'm making the case that a bottle of booze in the movies doesn't have quite the same effect in teenagers, and those who will smoke it more or perhaps for the first time as weed continues to be presented as harmless.
Almost nobody is going out there and saying that Budweiser/Vodka/Goldschlager/Jagermeister is actually quite good and useful as medicine. And before you argue about recent studies about the efficacy of a glass of wine a day for its' antioxidant properties tell me the last time 50 high schoolers got together and broke out with a case of Cabernet. Likewise, nobody argues that cigarettes are harmless. But with marijuana this is the growing chorus across all media, music, television, film. Marijuana: It's harmless, and might even be good for you.
Last edited:
And by that you must be excluding the clincical studies I linked to earlier in the thread that flatly contradict what some posters (including those you mentioned) are saying. Namely that no evidence exists that marijuana causes brain damage. I'm not sure why you're taking it personally (or appear to be). They said there's no evidence, then I posted EVIDENCE. That's where the debate should focus, IMO.
Okay, that's your opinion, just as the earlier statement was mine. That's how perception works. We see people smoking mass quantities of pot, and transform into dumbasses by the end of high school, we develop the perception it was the pot that did it to them. Why would you find this irrelevant? We're not statisticians, nor are we conducting a technical research study. We're talking on a forum and backing up our claims with evidence as we go. Perception is a valid entry in the discussion, where it might not be if we were collaborating on some kind of paper.
I'm confused by this sentence. Are you telling me what I do or don't do? Because if so, I think you told me I was out of my lane earlier. I'd suggest that unless I'm breaking a forum rule and you are correcting me for that as a moderator, this phrase which you use would apply to yourself.
If there's one thing you'll notice about my posts in the long time I've been posting here, it is that I have never once been knowingly disrespectful to anyone unless provoked with direct attacks, and usually even then I will refrain from responding in kind. As a moderator I haven't seen you crack down on the various attacks toward my position- including personal attacks, but in this response, it seems you're telling ME what to do.
I have no idea what this means.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that I've put words in your/other users mouths. When I say "We", as in "We seem to have two schools of thought", I mean "We" as in America. If that's what has you alarmed/bothered, then my mistake for lack of clarity. Written forums have their limits, and one omitted word can change the meaning of an entire paragraph.
I'm not even MILDLY outraged. My posts are about observations and backed by links to studies and quotes. I can see where you- and a few others have suggested that we omit portions of the greater debate for the sake of the thread, but I'm of the opinion that those other sub-topics are relevant. It has nothing to do with "missing the point" of the thread. Once again, that was a statement from you that gives the appearance of an insult. Either I am too ignorant to catch "the point", or else I'm dishonest and I am avoiding "the point". Neither is the case. We disagree on what the "point" of the thread is. To me, the point is discussing "The Marijauana Debate". The "Debate" in society today, from my point of view is legalization, the health impact, the body of knowledge, media portrayal; just a host of sub issues. This is not in my view a linear debate strictly about legality and States profitibility. Those are just parts of the greater discourse.
From this perspective, we should just close down the forum. Talking about politics or popular issues of our day is a waste of time unless I'm just wearing out shoe leather campaigning for my views where it counts- on the political trail.
@amlove21, your last post seems loaded with jabs. Although I usually agree with the vast majority of your posts, this last one comes across as a personal attack rather than a debate.
Last edited:
