....does anybody want to talk about what Kim Ogg did?

Your first paragraph just gives a reason why our anti drug education is poor. I already said that. It does nothing to promote torpedoing a legal deterrent. You said you didn't understand how someone could abuse mar1juana now are saying you think anything can be abused?

You are looking for the term physical withdrawal which is a separate issue from what people call addiction or compulsion. I believe mar1juana is harmful to society and the individual user. Now that the legal deterrent is destroyed a concerted and effective education program possibly even larger than the anti tobacco efforts should be used immediately. How much will that cost?

 

Taking this one at a time, I said that I don't think mar1juana could be abused because it is not physically addicting (meaning no physical withdrawal if you stop) and there's practically no way you can overdose (technically possible, but not realistically possible). Substances that can either kill you or rapidly decline your health that are physically addictive (meaning there is physical withdrawal if you quit) are substances that can be abused.

Substances such as Alcohol, damn near any upper such as cocaine, and opiates clearly fall into this category along with many other substances. mar1juana simply isn't one of them though.

When I said that nothing is healthy to do all day every day I was pointing out that just because it's not good to smoke weed all day every day doesn't put it into a category of a substance that can be abused because if that's the standard you'd have to list literally everything other than oxygen (which has one hell of a physical addiction) because breathing oxygen is the only thing that you can do all day every day without it being a bad thing.

I believe that a lot of things are harmful to society and the individual user, that's not a basis for banning it. Eating junk food is harmful to society and the individual user.....doesn't mean you have a reason to ban McDonald's and make it illegal to eat hamburgers. mar1juana is not even AS harmful as things like alcohol....so why not try to ban that? Clearly if we had a legal deterrent in place people would simply stop drinking and the world would be a better place.

Prohibitionists never learn it seems.

 

Alcohol is bad for you I agree. Bringing that up isn't a trump card that says everything else should also be legal. Fast food is another false equivalency. People have to eat and over eating even "healthy" food cause obesity, diabetes and heart disease. It isn't a drug like cannabis.

Libertarians are r****ded. You believe laws have no effect on societies behavior? It's a joke.

 

It really is a trump card though. If you are going to allow things that are MUCH worse for society and for individual users then what is your case for banning something almost completely harmless by comparison? Who are you to tell people they can't do it? Religion has all kinds of harmful effects on society, I suppose we should ban it then right?

It's funny that a certain breed of "conservatives" seem to always want to have the government interfere in other's personal lives when they see fit but they don't feel hypocritical at all whining about government overreach when it's something that affects their lives.

Just because you don't like something, or you feel like something is bad doesn't give you the right to ban it. If you step into that mindset you are no better than liberals who want to do the same types of things. Guns are harmful to society, let's ban them. Cars that get inefficient gas mileage are harmful to society, let's ban them.

Big government "conservatives" are the reason I could never be a Republican.

 

Not completely harmless. You have moved into fantasy

another false equivalency.

You grasping at straws and avoiding talk about the fact that cannabis is very harmful is telling. When there is a constitutional amendment about keeping and bearing cannabis this might not be so ridiculous.

 

Not only is it not "very harmful" by comparison to numerous other things that are legal.....which even if you don't want to accept it is the case, it's not terribly relevant. Something being "very harmful" isn't a reason to ban it and jail those who do it.

You seem to be missing the point here, if you are setting a precedent that things should be banned when they are "very harmful" to society and to users then you are suggesting that a LOT of things should be banned.

You simply haven't given a valid reason for mar1juana to be banned. You can't overdose, it's not addictive.....I mean what is your excuse for making it illegal? Because it's not good to do all day every day? We've been over that so I certainly hope you have a better excuse than that.

 

So you don't understand it is very harmful. Probably our second fundamental disagreement is as crazy libertarian you don't think laws change people's behavior.

 

Read what I just said over again. It's not as harmful as other things that are legal. You can't dispute that.

Even if it was as harmful as those things, it wouldn't matter because something being harmful is not an excuse to ban it and jail those who do it.

As a Libertarian and a conservative, I'm not ever going to be a fan of the government telling people how to live their lives when there is no valid reason to do so. Telling people that they can't smoke mar1juana is no different in principle than telling someone they can't buy red cars or that they can't play football or be a homosexual. Those things are simply none of their business......and there's no way that I'll ever agree with big government liberal types on this issue even if they are Republicans.

 

How is it not addictive?

 

The same way that anything that is not addictive is not addictive. Nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, cocaine, opiates....those things are addictive. mar1juana is not. Study after study has proven this so it's not even a controversial statement.

If someone tells you that they are addicted to mar1juana, they are simply not telling you the truth even if they don't know any better. You can't be addicted to mar1juana any more than you can be addicted to a blanket....even if some weak minded people convince themselves that they are.

 

saying that substances with physical withdrawals are addictive and mar1juana isn't is wrong. Not just because people who quit using cannabis have physical repercussions.

Those studies suggest that 9 percent of people who use mar1juana will become dependent on it,24,25 rising to about 17 percent in those who start using in their teens.26,27 In 2015, about 4.0 million people in the United States used or were dependent on mar1juana;3 138,000 voluntarily sought treatment for their mar1juana use.28

I kept the links hot.

 

Just asking because I have a cousin that has to smoke weed like a alcoholic has to have a drink. He can not seem to function with out it. He says it keeps him calm. I know he smokes while driving. Personally if a person feels the need to do it while driving then I think they have a problem.

 

What they are talking about is a mental addiction, it's not a real addiction. It's no different than a child with a security blanket. When I speak of addition, I'm talking about REAL addiction. Try being a pack a day smoker for a decade then quit cold turkey.....try being an alcoholic for 20 years who stops drinking entirely. Hell that's just legal things that are strongly physically addictive. Hell caffeine is that way. If you drink coffee every day, you'll get terrible headaches if you stop consuming caffeine entirely.

Opioid, alcohol, and benzodiazepine withdrawal can literally kill you. Those are legitimately addictive substances. Mentally weak people that think they need to smoke weed to keep calm, sleep, or just to function aren't the same because it's not actually true. People who have real addiction problems literally can't function without it.

Now that's not to say that those people who have convinced themselves they are addicted to mar1juana don't have a problem, they do.....it's just not a serious one and if we're honest their problems go way deeper than just the fact that they use mar1juana.

 

You continue to say addiction and then talk about withdrawals. You talk about withdrawals and deny cannabis has them. If you want to say addiction is a BS copout for lack of personal responsibility, I will agree with you. You however are taking the illogical step to only assign this lack of personal responsibility to certain things. Consistently use the same definition for words.

 

Well I'm fine with you believing that mar1juana leads to real physical addiction, but it's simply not true and spreading that kind of nonsense misinformation is how we get where we are now. I mean you might as well be suggesting everyone watch Reefer Madness to get an idea of the menace of mar1juana use.

There's real addiction which is an actual thing that in many cases can literally kill you, and there is mental addiction that isn't a real thing. You can convince yourself that you are mentally addicted to literally anything and it wouldn't make that thing addictive. Are video games addictive? I know people that would flip out if they didn't get to play them but I hardly think that makes them addictive and something that should be banned.

Again though, I said earlier that I'm not ever going to see eye to eye with big government liberals when it comes to this kind of thing.

 

You keep saying that word that has no meaning to make your argument that isn't grounded in facts. Physical withdrawals for alcoholics ends after detox, why do they go back to drinking? At that point it is "addiction" . If you want to say addiction is BS an they should have self control that is where my thoughts also are. Saying it is physically addictive after the physical side effects are gone is intellectually dishonest. Be consistent. because cannabis has physical effects as well.

of course you can and it takes away responsibility for your self destructing actions. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Addiction is either real or it isn't. Physical withdrawal is real but it is a side effect of many things that people don't call addicting and not a side effect of many things people call addicting. Whichever definition suits their current needs. You are using it as a litmus test and at the same time not admitting cannabis has withdrawals.

 

Don't all addictions start out as a mental addiction?

 

So you think "physical addiction" has no meaning? Experience it, then we'll talk.

When it comes to any other type of "addiction" we're talking about merely a mental addiction and in those instances you can just suck it up and put your big boy pants on. If you do that with legitimately additive things, and by that I mean physically addictive things, you can literally end up dead as a result of not using something. That's a real addiction, not some whiny nonsense where people just think they want something.

Either way though, this is getting completely off topic in that it's not relevant to why you think big brother should be telling people how to live their lives and what is good or bad for them. I'm interested how you justify that.

When it comes to phisically addictive things, you go through withdrawal if you stop using which leads to more and more using. Cigarettes are that way, you don't really become a smoker till you are physically addicted to them....and it can happen quicker than some think.

 

How about get some objective evidence of what you are discussing? You have just admitted objective evidence of something that is foundational to your argument doesn't exist.

and by that you mean withdrawals, which ends after detox.

 

That assumes that people detox or that they even can detox but yes, that's what physical addiction is. I'm glad you are caught up. There's no piont in talking about things as being "addictive" if we're not talking about physical addiction because literally anything in the world can be "addictive" if we just mean that someone likes it.

That said, you still haven't shown a legitimate reason why you seem to think big brother should tell people how to live their lives. How is it your business or the business of the government if someone smokes weed? Also, if you go the route of big government liberal, will you accept their arbitrary rules if they go against things you want to do or be part of?