After about the 2nd point I never saw any benefits.

A drug is a drug and is addictive. You lose out on money and life. You may feel good after while but in the long term it is not good.

voted yes but im going to go devils advocate

1. the drug is the most likely to cause psychosis out of the relatively "soft" drugs (moreso then LSD). in other words, im establishing it has a negative side effect, that occurs faster and is more apparent then liver cancer from drinking.

i will have problem finding sources from the cuz it were on a norwegian tv show, but he sai df you have a group of people who smoke weed and a group who don't there is about twice as much chance of those smoking weed getting a psychosis then those who didn't smoke. BUT this is because those smoking weed often start with it because of depression in the firstplace, or other psycolotical damage which is why they need the releaf. which mean that those 2 groups can't really be compared because they don't start of equal in this case.

extravenous variables yes, actual stats, im still ahead. psychosis =/= depression.

2. the drug is known as a gateway drug, taking it often results in taking harder substances, this is a slippery slope, but it is well documented where people that use "hard" drugs, only did so after taking marijuana, correlation doesnt result in causation but... yeah. the numbers are there
Even ungdom mot narkotika [youths against drugs] have said that it's not a gateway to stronger drugs.
did you know about 100% of all who have done stronger drugs have eaten chocolate?!
the numbers are there, yuo will find what you are lookign for.
i would more blame that people get into a criminal inviroment because the weed is illegal, i and friends haev been offered heroin because they didn't have weed, they were jsut gone have some fun, so ofcoarse they said no, but think of those who are addicted but don't dare to try to get clean because it's illegal. they might say yes, so in some sence yes it lead on, but much because of the lews that make it illegal

no comment, has trouble finding your point other then pointing out what i pointed out that correlation doesnt equal causation.

3. overall detrimental to society, also, pretty much no countries have the drug with a traditional value attached (unlike smokes and alcohol)
lets compare to say... cigarettes in australia. these things are taxxed ridiculously... (roughly $15 for 25 cigarettes) due to aggressive government campaigns against them spanning more then a decade.
15% of the cost goes to the manufacturer (suppliers)
15% goes to the retailer (people who sell the cigarettes)
70% goes to tax where i think it was 80% of that gets directly funneled into hospitals.
as you can see, tobacco is taxxed to the extreme.
and it pays itself off due to smokers funding hospitals directly.
this is because
1) tobacco is hard to grow efficiently illegally
2) tobacco is hard to import illegally (but some illegal stuff does get in, cant stop it all)
so there are no dealers undercutting the legal market with cheaper tobacco, hence, no competition and massive taxxed cigs help save lives in hospitals while people are free to enjoy your cancer tubes.

marijuana on the other hand is INCREDIBLY easy to grow.
$500 can set you up with a state of the art hydroponic shed, capable of efficient returns and all the directions are on the internet in legal DETAILED documents showing how to grow hydroponic... strawberries for example.
such illegality would undercut government taxxing on a drug that is obviously negative. hence, no one would buy the legal stuff. hence society suffers and hospitals would have to deal with an influx of emphysema and psychosis and a variety of other problems associated with the drug.

in short, other then the ability for a new way to kill yourself, there is no overall beneficial value to cannabis.
the thing is, people can still get the weed, and finanse crime while they buy it. so the goverment still have to pay for it, so any income would be better then all the money they use now to get police to look after people smoking weed. also if it were legal and it were sold in real stores i would hope they had standars, as for the stuff you get on the street you have no idea if someone have done anything with it to make it weigh more to get more money, so actualy less medical bills would need to be payd. and people could actualy be thaught how to do it more safely and in a better way if it were legal since the goverment won't teach people about things that are illegal.
your argument is invalid, legalising it means dealers can hold the drugs without fear of punishment from the law. everything else is as follows as i have already stated

4. again, a slippery slope. but legalising another drug would simply call for the legalisation of others. as a recreational drug, marijuana isnt a whole lot more safer then LSD. are you for LSD?
Weed don't kill, easy as that

http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/humanservices ... /study.htm
causes emphysema, LSD is relatively safe and unaddictive, it has killed, but thats from morons mixing drugs and eating the LSD stickers by the handfuls.

5. now, my strongest point of argument...
are you sure your not high?
quack quack

voted yes but im going to go devils advocate

1. the drug is the most likely to cause psychosis out of the relatively "soft" drugs (moreso then LSD). in other words, im establishing it has a negative side effect, that occurs faster and is more apparent then liver cancer from drinking.

2. the drug is known as a gateway drug, taking it often results in taking harder substances, this is a slippery slope, but it is well documented where people that use "hard" drugs, only did so after taking marijuana, correlation doesnt result in causation but... yeah. the numbers are there

marijuana on the other hand is INCREDIBLY easy to grow.
$500 can set you up with a state of the art hydroponic shed, capable of efficient returns and all the directions are on the internet in legal DETAILED documents showing how to grow hydroponic... strawberries for example.
such illegality would undercut government taxxing on a drug that is obviously negative. hence, no one would buy the legal stuff. hence society suffers and hospitals would have to deal with an influx of emphysema and psychosis and a variety of other problems associated with the drug.

in short, other then the ability for a new way to kill yourself, there is no overall beneficial value to cannabis.

ducky out.
(till wednesday or thursday~~)

if you say weed doesnt hurt the liver as fast as alcohol again, ill treat it as a straw man and ignore it, referring you to this.

LSD is notoriously known as a non addictive drug, referring to my earlier point, are you for the legalisation of LSD? again, i dont copy paste. FFS. if i repeat this again, ill ignore you. most of the time i just make stuff up and hope that no one here can read english >.> (sarcasm)
everything is in my own words, if you challenge a point of mine, ill link you up. you just stated how your body craves the high (not just used to the drug screwing with your neurons), i maintain that you are a druggy (an addict). btw, you covered that it is non addictive, i never said it wasnt, i pointed out that it was negative overall to society.

your bodies intuition to stay high = your body craves the substance and cannot just give it up = you are addicted and in denial. seriously.

no, it heightens perceptions, not necessarily more aware, the colours will be brighter, the noises may be different and louder, but your reaction time is so screwed that you could move out of the way for a rising tide.

IMO, im winning, you guys need to lay off the weed and bring something credible here.

Well time for my and my awesome debating skills(note = sarcasm) to join in.


First off.
I see alot being debated her , on whether its bad or not.
Why does that matter? alcohol kills way more people than weed does.
Only 1 person(I think) ever died from a weed overdose.
79000 die from alcohol poisoning a year.

weed doesnt kill by overdose, weed kills through impairment of decisions. i know it takes a couple hundred kilos of weed to be smoked to get OD, im talking diseases like emphysema setting in.

oh and alcohol is number one used drug~~ its like trying to say USA is stupid because China has so much more A+ students, china has 4 times more people.
That last part doesen't make alot of sense?
Anyway , what i ment whas , alcohol which is way more harmfull is legal , logicaly thinking , something less harmful should be legal?

Weed is less dangerous than alcohol.
"weed is bad" even if it is(all drugs are).
It should be somebody's own choice to decide what the put in their body(or parent's) not the governments. (they could put a age restriction on it , like alcohol/tobacco.)
So imo , we should keep this whole "weed is bad or not" thing out of the discussion.

im saying that it is inherently bad to society as one cannot tax it for society. hence it has negatives, but pretty much no positives (there are sooo many recreational drugs out there...)
You can tax it , of-course people can avoid it , but avoiding taxes is against the law.
Somebody taking drugs , whitout harming others(while driving or something) schould be legal.
Harming others should still be against the law , even when under the influence of drugs , if somebody does not affect anybody in a harmfull way , why can he not take it?
Secondly.
This applies more to the U.S.A than Europa(here in the Netherlands we don't have a "war on drugs" + a few other country's)
But I know that they do in the U.S.A
This "war on drugs" costs money. Tax payer money.

yes, but it isnt just against weed, its against the abuse of all drugs.
True , but atleast they would have to spend less money on the "weed"part.
And besides , is the war on drugs actually doing any good?

On-top of that , it creates so called "harmless" criminals.
Criminals get arrested because they pose a threat to society.
Potheads/people who sell weed(those who grow it themselves)Don't pose a threat to society , yet the government threats them as criminals.

coughREADWHAT'LAW'IScough
Acoording to the law people who grow weed or sell them are criminals , not everywhere(some states/the Netherlands)
But the point is , it creates criminals who are harmless.

And of-course : The police force , instead of going after real criminals , they go after those potheads/sellers.
This is a waste of police force.

they go after drug dealers, people who negatively steal from the society to further line there pockets with the addicted's money. many states are lax about possession of weed, a small fine, confiscation and a warning are the usual. but dealers are contributing to the problem.
So do the tobacco company's and the alcohol company's.

Yet that is legal.
It doesn't make any bloody sense.

Making it legal = more tax money = more money for the economy/schools/infrastructure.

It is run by the government but the website is maintained by the media department because interestingly enough, the internet is a form of media. strike one is continuing to point out that weed doesnt damage the liver when i never said it does. strike two is this blatantly moronic point. im not saying you are stupid, but this point is just sad, surely you can do better.