Alaska is the first red state to legalize recreational Marijuana

[Derideo_Te]

Except that nonsense has been completely and utterly debunked.

If that were true millions of 70's hippies would all be hooked on heroin. Only that never happened. They just stopped smoking joints and became respectable adults with jobs and families instead.

You don't understand what gateway drug theory is.

The idea is not that everyone who smokes weed moves to heroin or cocaine.

Most people, if any, don't start at heroin, but started at softer drugs like marijuana. Show me one heroin addict that started at heroin and I will show you 50 that started at pot. This is the point, that soft drug use leads to an increased likelihood of harder dug use. Meaning those who haven't used substances like marijuana to begin with are less like to use harder drugs.

Many baby boomers are amoral, selfish, narcissistic faggots, bad example.

Marijuana, NOT EVEN ONCE.

So according to that fallacy of yours soda is a gateway to becoming an alcoholic because you can't show me a single alcoholic who never started by drinking a soda, right?

Your false equivalence fails because there is no causality. Addicts become addicts because they have addictive personalities. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the substances they abuse either. People who are addicted to gambling or cutting themselves or bulimia didn't all smoke pot first.

It isn't a fallacy.

It is just a fact someone who smokes marijuana is at a higher risk of using hard drugs than someone who doesn't use marijuana. Gateway drug theory isn't about gambling or bulimia so stop confusing the issue.

The only confusion is yours.

Cannabis is not in the least bit "addictive" to those without addictive personalities to begin with. There are no "withdrawal symptoms" from cannabis even for heavy users. There is also no proven causality. The onus is on you to provide it you can't.

Yes there are withdrawal symptoms.

Contrary to common belief, marijuana is addictive. Estimates from research suggest that about 9 percent of users become addicted to marijuana; this number increases among those who start young (to about 17 percent, or 1 in 6) and among people who use marijuana daily (to 25-50 percent).

Long-term marijuana users trying to quit report withdrawal symptoms including irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which can make it difficult to abstain.

DrugFacts Marijuana National Institute on Drug Abuse NIDA

NIDA is addicted to funding from the phony "war on drugs". Their "evidence" is fabricated and the gullible like you and your ilk never question the source or the motives of places like NIDA.

 

[Derideo_Te]

But is marijuana in moderate doses harmful to one's health? Yes it is, and the studies show this.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Onus is on you to provide credible links proving your claim.

I already provided multiple links in this thread that even moderate use of marijuana harms cognitive function, whereas even regular heavy drinking doesn't, just look through the thread.

Your links are self serving and not evidence based. Those "studies" are done by people "addicted" to funding grants that pay their salaries.

Yes, all the studies university and government studies are conspiracies. What a convenient way for you to keep your head in the sand on the issue. What a pathetic rebuttal.

Ironic coming from someone whose cranium is situated within his own nether regions.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I know you don't live in the United States, but I would think whatever backward country you do live in would have heard of the great experiment the United States had with alcohol prohibition.

That prohibition enriched criminals and killed Americans. It was a huge failure.

Just like marijuana prohibition.

The criminals who sold illegal alcohol were driven out of the business by legal alcohol producers- and that is exactly what is happening with marijuana.

The criminals who sold illegal alcohol didn't suddenly become law abiding. They moved into drug sales. .

There was little in the way of an illegal drug market in 1930- organized crime focused on loan sharking, gambling and prostitution once they lost the alcohol market. And violence dropped once the big money was eliminated.

Also, you never answered the question. Since there is much organized violence behind heroin and cocaine, the solution should be to legalize these substances, yes?

The argument for legalizing those substances makes more sense and costs far less than the insane phony "war on drugs" that you mindlessly support.

Think of all the tax money we will get from legalized heroin! No external costs there at all...

Think of all the tax money we will save not wasting it on the DEA.

 

[Syriusly]

Alcohol and cigarettes may have higher rates of addiction, but are less harmful as far as cognitive function goes. Moderate Marijuana use in the immediate term is far more harmful than cigarette use and certainly more so than moderate alcohol consumption.

Read the studies I linked in the thread, they aren't but a couple pages back. But in reality, you don't care about the science behind the issue, so what's the point? Your view wouldn't change even if you read the studies and admitted marijuana is more harmful. Because at the end of the day, you just don't think the government has the right to tell someone not to toke, regardless of harm level. I would be curious to see if that logic applies to cocaine and heroin as well? We shouldn't be inconsistent right?

And right back at you.

At the end of the day you think the government does have the right to tell people what they can- or cannot smoke- unless of course it is alcohol or cigarettes......

You fail to apply your 'logic' to alcohol- why would we expect you to use the same logic for alcohol and cocaine and heroin?

 

[BullKurtz]

Most of these loser progs' heads are still back in the early 70's when the reefer in the US was mostly mediocre mexican or midwestern ditch weed left to grow after the military stopped growing hemp for rope during WW2. Back then they were "rebels" (long hair sissies) until Nixon had the weed fields sprayed with paraquat. Almost immediately the big city streets were flooded with heroin...that's the "gateway" moment...when the weed dealer had no product and took on harder shit like hashish and opium....then later quaaludes and dexedrine.

Shit, some of us home from the RVN back in Detroit used to rob these dickweeds of their stash and their cash...just crash in and take it...fucking pitiful. Then they turned to biker gangs for protection and got ripped off worse. And that smoke was nowhere near the potency of what's around today. Bricks in Mexico cost us $40 and half that if we traded them 1911s for a truckload. Bottom line? Nobody I know ever did themselves any good from smoking weed....nobody.

 

[whitehall]

Interesting that the poster claims "who would have thought that pot would be a cure for stupid". Yeah right, what's the first thing that comes to mind when you think of a pot-head? Stupid right? let's watch those Alaskan SAT scores go through the roof.

 

[Steinlight]

Alcohol and cigarettes may have higher rates of addiction, but are less harmful as far as cognitive function goes. Moderate Marijuana use in the immediate term is far more harmful than cigarette use and certainly more so than moderate alcohol consumption.

Read the studies I linked in the thread, they aren't but a couple pages back. But in reality, you don't care about the science behind the issue, so what's the point? Your view wouldn't change even if you read the studies and admitted marijuana is more harmful. Because at the end of the day, you just don't think the government has the right to tell someone not to toke, regardless of harm level. I would be curious to see if that logic applies to cocaine and heroin as well? We shouldn't be inconsistent right?

I have read the studies and they are self serving in the exact same way the "studies" done by the big tobacco companies were bogus. The reality is that millions of people use cannabis on a daily basis. The "evidence" doesn't stand up to reality.

Oh, and you are the one who lacks logic because you are constantly trying to equate cannabis to heroin and cocaine which are as addictive and harmful as nicotine, if not more so. I notice that you don't make that "inconsistent" argument. Why not? Does the term hypocrisy ring any bells?

The reality is, millions of these people have reduced cognitive function. This is obvious from observing the average pothead. Show me one 1 white collar lawyer who has a daily joint and rakes in six figures and I will show you 50 pothead man children in a university town that are delivering pizzas for a living.

I am not hypocritical at all, I oppose legalization of all drugs. I can get behind decriminalization of smaller amounts of marijuana however. You are the ones who claim for example, that there would be reduced violent crime rate if marijuana was legalized. There is a significant amount of violent crime related to the sales and trafficking of cocaine and heroin, by your logic, shouldn't we legalize heroin and cocaine? Just tax and regulate like everything else?

 

[Steinlight]

You don't understand what gateway drug theory is.

The idea is not that everyone who smokes weed moves to heroin or cocaine.

Most people, if any, don't start at heroin, but started at softer drugs like marijuana. Show me one heroin addict that started at heroin and I will show you 50 that started at pot. This is the point, that soft drug use leads to an increased likelihood of harder dug use. Meaning those who haven't used substances like marijuana to begin with are less like to use harder drugs.

Many baby boomers are amoral, selfish, narcissistic faggots, bad example.

Marijuana, NOT EVEN ONCE.

So according to that fallacy of yours soda is a gateway to becoming an alcoholic because you can't show me a single alcoholic who never started by drinking a soda, right?

Your false equivalence fails because there is no causality. Addicts become addicts because they have addictive personalities. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the substances they abuse either. People who are addicted to gambling or cutting themselves or bulimia didn't all smoke pot first.

It isn't a fallacy.

It is just a fact someone who smokes marijuana is at a higher risk of using hard drugs than someone who doesn't use marijuana. Gateway drug theory isn't about gambling or bulimia so stop confusing the issue.

You're wrong bud. Your just spewing propoganda. I promise you all the cokeheads and heroine users of the world tried alcohol first. And probably cigarettes.

But I CAN think of a way that marijuana IS a gateway drug! Because it's so illegal the only way to get it is to get mixed up with criminals. And those criminals have access to other drugs! So it makes getting into further illegal activities seem not so bad!

But I can think of one very easy way to end that...

Someone that just drinks alcohol is less likely than someone who uses marijuana to use hard drugs

Because it is legal and they are not exposed to the criminal element.

This is true, those who use marijuana are definitely more prone to criminal behavior than those who just drink.

 

[TheOldSchool]

So according to that fallacy of yours soda is a gateway to becoming an alcoholic because you can't show me a single alcoholic who never started by drinking a soda, right?

Your false equivalence fails because there is no causality. Addicts become addicts because they have addictive personalities. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the substances they abuse either. People who are addicted to gambling or cutting themselves or bulimia didn't all smoke pot first.

It isn't a fallacy.

It is just a fact someone who smokes marijuana is at a higher risk of using hard drugs than someone who doesn't use marijuana. Gateway drug theory isn't about gambling or bulimia so stop confusing the issue.

You're wrong bud. Your just spewing propoganda. I promise you all the cokeheads and heroine users of the world tried alcohol first. And probably cigarettes.

But I CAN think of a way that marijuana IS a gateway drug! Because it's so illegal the only way to get it is to get mixed up with criminals. And those criminals have access to other drugs! So it makes getting into further illegal activities seem not so bad!

But I can think of one very easy way to end that...

Someone that just drinks alcohol is less likely than someone who uses marijuana to use hard drugs

Because it is legal and they are not exposed to the criminal element.

This is true, those who use marijuana are definitely more prone to criminal behavior than those who just drink.

But not as prone to overdose, liver failure, kidney failure, heart disease, DUI, physical injury, beating your wife and children, etc.

 

[Steinlight]

You don't understand what gateway drug theory is.

The idea is not that everyone who smokes weed moves to heroin or cocaine.

Oh I understand it better than you will ever know, and it's idiocy to say I said "everyone" who smokes a joint ends up a junkie. It's really a pity there are so many simpletons here who don't understand what they read.

Gateway theory is the idea that someone who uses marijuana is at a higher risk of using harder drugs than some who doesn't. Same with alcohol and cigarettes however, those that just smoke or drink are less likely than those who use marijuana to use harder drugs.

 

[Steinlight]

You don't understand what gateway drug theory is.

The idea is not that everyone who smokes weed moves to heroin or cocaine.

Most people, if any, don't start at heroin, but started at softer drugs like marijuana. Show me one heroin addict that started at heroin and I will show you 50 that started at pot. This is the point, that soft drug use leads to an increased likelihood of harder dug use. Meaning those who haven't used substances like marijuana to begin with are less like to use harder drugs.

Many baby boomers are amoral, selfish, narcissistic faggots, bad example.

Marijuana, NOT EVEN ONCE.

So according to that fallacy of yours soda is a gateway to becoming an alcoholic because you can't show me a single alcoholic who never started by drinking a soda, right?

Your false equivalence fails because there is no causality. Addicts become addicts because they have addictive personalities. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the substances they abuse either. People who are addicted to gambling or cutting themselves or bulimia didn't all smoke pot first.

It isn't a fallacy.

It is just a fact someone who smokes marijuana is at a higher risk of using hard drugs than someone who doesn't use marijuana. Gateway drug theory isn't about gambling or bulimia so stop confusing the issue.

The only confusion is yours.

Cannabis is not in the least bit "addictive" to those without addictive personalities to begin with. There are no "withdrawal symptoms" from cannabis even for heavy users. There is also no proven causality. The onus is on you to provide it you can't.

Yes there are withdrawal symptoms.

Contrary to common belief, marijuana is addictive. Estimates from research suggest that about 9 percent of users become addicted to marijuana; this number increases among those who start young (to about 17 percent, or 1 in 6) and among people who use marijuana daily (to 25-50 percent).

Long-term marijuana users trying to quit report withdrawal symptoms including irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which can make it difficult to abstain.

DrugFacts Marijuana National Institute on Drug Abuse NIDA

NIDA is addicted to funding from the phony "war on drugs". Their "evidence" is fabricated and the gullible like you and your ilk never question the source or the motives of places like NIDA.

What evidence do you have it is fabricated?

 

[Steinlight]

Alcohol and cigarettes may have higher rates of addiction, but are less harmful as far as cognitive function goes. Moderate Marijuana use in the immediate term is far more harmful than cigarette use and certainly more so than moderate alcohol consumption.

Read the studies I linked in the thread, they aren't but a couple pages back. But in reality, you don't care about the science behind the issue, so what's the point? Your view wouldn't change even if you read the studies and admitted marijuana is more harmful. Because at the end of the day, you just don't think the government has the right to tell someone not to toke, regardless of harm level. I would be curious to see if that logic applies to cocaine and heroin as well? We shouldn't be inconsistent right?

And right back at you.

At the end of the day you think the government does have the right to tell people what they can- or cannot smoke- unless of course it is alcohol or cigarettes......

You fail to apply your 'logic' to alcohol- why would we expect you to use the same logic for alcohol and cocaine and heroin?

Because alcohol in moderate use does not harm an individual's health, whereas marijuana, cocaine, and heroin do. My view isn't inconsistent. But if your view is based off the claim that the government doesn't have to dictate what someone puts in their body, or that you support legalizing marijuana to reduced organized violence, than you should support legalizing hard drugs as well.

But yes, I think the government has the right to tell people what they can and cannot put in their bodies.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is true, those who use marijuana are definitely more prone to criminal behavior than those who just drink.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So according to that fallacy of yours soda is a gateway to becoming an alcoholic because you can't show me a single alcoholic who never started by drinking a soda, right?

Your false equivalence fails because there is no causality. Addicts become addicts because they have addictive personalities. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the substances they abuse either. People who are addicted to gambling or cutting themselves or bulimia didn't all smoke pot first.

It isn't a fallacy.

It is just a fact someone who smokes marijuana is at a higher risk of using hard drugs than someone who doesn't use marijuana. Gateway drug theory isn't about gambling or bulimia so stop confusing the issue.

The only confusion is yours.

Cannabis is not in the least bit "addictive" to those without addictive personalities to begin with. There are no "withdrawal symptoms" from cannabis even for heavy users. There is also no proven causality. The onus is on you to provide it you can't.

Yes there are withdrawal symptoms.

Contrary to common belief, marijuana is addictive. Estimates from research suggest that about 9 percent of users become addicted to marijuana; this number increases among those who start young (to about 17 percent, or 1 in 6) and among people who use marijuana daily (to 25-50 percent).

Long-term marijuana users trying to quit report withdrawal symptoms including irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which can make it difficult to abstain.

DrugFacts Marijuana National Institute on Drug Abuse NIDA

NIDA is addicted to funding from the phony "war on drugs". Their "evidence" is fabricated and the gullible like you and your ilk never question the source or the motives of places like NIDA.

What evidence do you have it is fabricated?

Just look at the statistics of actual users versus the fabricated claims of "harm". If those fabrications were "accurate" there would be millions of people with those symptoms overwhelming the medical system. But they don't exist. The fabrications fail the reality test.

However there is no question that those who fabricate these studies are addicted to their funding. Without that they would be looking for a real job.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Because alcohol in moderate use does not harm an individual's health, whereas marijuana, cocaine, and heroin do.

Absolute BS! Prove that moderate use of cannabis harms anyone's health using data from an unbiased credible source.

 

[Steinlight]

This is true, those who use marijuana are definitely more prone to criminal behavior than those who just drink.

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF MARIJUANA USE FROM ADOLESCENCE TO ADULTHOOD PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL ROLE OUTCOMES

 

[HenryBHough]

I find amusing the sullen silence of any Alaskans who might be with us concerning their loss of liberty through legalization as opposed to the former simple "decriminalization".

Of course they haven't started to pay taxes or license fees yet and the three arrested last night may not yet have posted bail so aren't saying much.

 

[Steinlight]

It isn't a fallacy.

It is just a fact someone who smokes marijuana is at a higher risk of using hard drugs than someone who doesn't use marijuana. Gateway drug theory isn't about gambling or bulimia so stop confusing the issue.

The only confusion is yours.

Cannabis is not in the least bit "addictive" to those without addictive personalities to begin with. There are no "withdrawal symptoms" from cannabis even for heavy users. There is also no proven causality. The onus is on you to provide it you can't.

Yes there are withdrawal symptoms.

Contrary to common belief, marijuana is addictive. Estimates from research suggest that about 9 percent of users become addicted to marijuana; this number increases among those who start young (to about 17 percent, or 1 in 6) and among people who use marijuana daily (to 25-50 percent).

Long-term marijuana users trying to quit report withdrawal symptoms including irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which can make it difficult to abstain.

DrugFacts Marijuana National Institute on Drug Abuse NIDA

NIDA is addicted to funding from the phony "war on drugs". Their "evidence" is fabricated and the gullible like you and your ilk never question the source or the motives of places like NIDA.

What evidence do you have it is fabricated?

Just look at the statistics of actual users versus the fabricated claims of "harm". If those fabrications were "accurate" there would be millions of people with those symptoms overwhelming the medical system. But they don't exist. The fabrications fail the reality test.

However there is no question that those who fabricate these studies are addicted to their funding. Without that they would be looking for a real job.

There is actual evidence of reduced cognitive function and altered brain composition/chemistry. You just don't accept it. And no, those things don't necessitate the medical system being overwhelmed.

 

[Steinlight]

Because alcohol in moderate use does not harm an individual's health, whereas marijuana, cocaine, and heroin do.

Absolute BS! Prove that moderate use of cannabis harms anyone's health using data from an unbiased credible source.

"A credible source. Like Vox or some gay 23 year old blogger from Yale! Governments and universities are all lying man! "

LOL

Sorry, just saying you don't agree with the studies isn't an argument.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is true, those who use marijuana are definitely more prone to criminal behavior than those who just drink.

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF MARIJUANA USE FROM ADOLESCENCE TO ADULTHOOD PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL ROLE OUTCOMES

Seriously?

Are you really this gullible?

What does the very first sentence say?

"Longitudinal trajectories of marijuana use from adolescence into adulthood were examined for adverse life-course outcomes among African-Americans and Puerto Ricans. "

Who is the study targeting?

Underprivileged minorities, right?

And who are more likely to end up committing crimes?

Underprivileged minorities, right?

But you are gullible enough to believe that growing up as an underprivileged minorities in a crime ridden neighborhood is not the primary cause of becoming a criminal but smoking pot is the cause?



Thanks for destroying your own credibility with your "post smoking" behavior.

Have a nice day.