Legalize Marijuana?

[DarkSun]

I LOLed....:biglaugh:

Ah, gotcha. Sorry for my rant, then

No, no, don't be. It was interesting to read that, actually. Thank you for posting.

 

[Stellify]

No, no, don't be. It was interesting to read that, actually. Thank you for posting.

Heh....psychology major for ya, I guess...
It was something drilled into our heads over and over and over by my Quantitative Research Design professor..
I hope to be published myself in the next year or two

 

[DarkSun]

Personal anecdotes are an iffy form of argumentation.

But I would place my experience in my involvement with Ridgeview mental hospital and close observations of people detoxing from alcohol abuse compared to the marijuana users denied admittance into the hospital because the nature of the drug was not considered to reach the level of addiction that they treated within one of the highest ranked hospitals within the United States over the observation comparable to a Sunday school class.

It was an OP subject. Would you consider "philosophy" a sunday school class?

But that aside, I don't think I was disagreeing with you about it being impossible to gain a physical dependence on marijuana. Sorry if it came out as if I were suggesting such a thing.

 

[gnomon]

It was an OP subject. Would you consider "philosophy" a sunday school class?

But that aside, I don't think I was disagreeing with you about it being impossible to gather a physical dependence on marijuana. Sorry if it came out as if I were suggesting such a thing.

No problems.

I might be a little bit sensitive over certain issues of this debate having spent a long time within the recovery community. In other words, I have a deep personal experience with a variety of drugs and paid close attention to the medical community around me in what they stated about substance abuse.

However, you are right to bring up the issue of anecdotal evidence. For no matter how much I can argue my own personal experience it still remains anecdotal.

 

[DarkSun]

Heh....psychology major for ya, I guess...
It was something drilled into our heads over and over and over by my Quantitative Research Design professor..
I hope to be published myself in the next year or two

Oh really now? I've always wanted to study psychology, but they didn't offer it at my school and I don't exactly want to do that sort of thing for a living, so I can't take it up at uni.

Forgive me for not knowing, but by being "published", do you mean that you're developing your thesis or...?

 

[Stellify]

Oh really now? I've always wanted to study psychology, but they didn't offer it at my school and I don't exactly want to do that sort of thing for a living, so I can't take it up at uni.

Forgive me for not knowing, but by being "published", do you mean that you're developing your thesis or...?

I adore psychology. I want to have a private practice when I finish school and get some experience under my belt It's extremely useful in other ways, though...If you ever get the chance, you should take a class. Even if it's later in life

Although fairly soon I do have to have my own thesis/theses and perform research based on my own study, I can get into published articles sooner by helping another researcher with their work. I would be like a co-author.
Most times, non-Ph.D's have to have a Ph.D involved and co-authoring their work in order to get published, anyways. It lends credibility to the work.

 

[DarkSun]

edit: Also, given the millions of known users of marijuana within the U.S. alone and the relative low admittance factor of marijuana users for psychologically induced drug disorders compared to those few individuals admitted for known psychological disorders who reverted to the use of marijuana as a medical device. In other words, there is a difference between a single anecdote and that of observation of hundreds of people (my own) and that of millions (the medical community at large) of the use of marijuana and its relative dangers. I could easily assert Carl Sagan as a marijuana user but the point is it's irrelevant.

The long term studies of psychologically induced disorders form the use of marijuana have yet to adequately factor out pre-existing mental conditions. Statistically speaking, if marijuana use was a damaging psychologically there would be greater incidences of hospital admittance for this condition. Yet, the greatest admittance for hospital admittance for marijuana use remains court ordered use based on no scientific basis. By no scientific basis I mean that the law has not relied upon scientific evidence.

Evidently, one in four people actually suffer from some form of mental illness at one point in their lives... If Marijuana is only intended to affect people with pre-existing medical conditions, then that's still a lot of people it could potentially affect. And that being said, 80 million people in the US have admitted to smoking marijuana at one point in their lives according to the link I was provided earlier. These people weren't even casual smokers, so users and abusers of the drug would be an even smaller minority. In comparison, who doesn't drink alcohol? That would be why Marijuana has a relatively low admittence rate in comparison to alcohol. And it's nowhere near as bad as meth or heroin, so this would explain why there are more meth addicts that are hospitalised for rehabilitation or mental health problems. But that being said, I think it might also depend on the individual too.

double edit: Thank you for at least engaging in a debate. It's good to see this issue being debated.

Sorry if I've been a nuisance to you, that's all. I realise that in comparison, I do not really know as much as you. I think that personal bias is just really hard to change....

 

[DarkSun]

I adore psychology. I want to have a private practice when I finish school and get some experience under my belt It's extremely useful in other ways, though...If you ever get the chance, you should take a class. Even if it's later in life

Although fairly soon I do have to have my own thesis/theses and perform research based on my own study, I can get into published articles sooner by helping another researcher with their work. I would be like a co-author.
Most times, non-Ph.D's have to have a Ph.D involved and co-authoring their work in order to get published, anyways. It lends credibility to the work.

From what little I have read, psychology does seem to be fairly interesting.

But ironically enough, I'll be starting my first year of Pharmaceutical Science on March second. I want to get into Research, to look into drugs which could potentially cure a life-threatening disease. I've been interested in organic chemistry, so I thought this would be the best way that I could help people. There's that, and I'll come to understand more about how drugs affect the body.

 

[Stellify]

Sorry if I've been a nuisance to you, that's all. I realise that in comparison, I do not really know as much as you. I think that personal bias is just really hard to change....

We're all here to learn And you're earnestly participating in debates and discussions without being rude. That's more than some can say
I used to be very much like you....I've loosened up my views some over the past few years. But that doesn't mean I completely disagree with you, either. I've definitely had friends I tried to convince to stop smoking or drinking because they were doing it for the wrong reasons, abusing it, or it was affecting their health.

 

[Stellify]

From what little I have read, psychology does seem to be fairly interesting.

But ironically enough, I'll be starting my first year of Pharmaceutical Science on March second. I want to get into Research, to look into drugs which could potentially cure a life-threatening disease. I've been interested in organic chemistry, so I thought this would be the best way that I could help people. There's that, and I'll come to understand more about how drugs affect the body.

That's great! I've always found that very interesting myself. Although I would probably do more botany-related research.
The drugs they're coming out with, and the progress they've made in understanding the chemical reactions in the body and brain are absolutely astounding. I subscribe to one of the big psychology magazines here in the states (I'm not sure if it's released in other countries or not...), and there are always really cool articles about research done on medications or brain processes.
One of the last ones I read was about how the myelin sheath is actually much more active in the neurological workings than previously thought

 

[gnomon]

Evidently, one in four people actually suffer from some form of mental illness at one point in their lives... If Marijuana is only intended to affect people with pre-existing medical conditions, then that's still a lot of people it could potentially effect. And that being said, 80 million people in the US have admitted to smoking marijuana at one point in their lives according to the link I was provided earlier. These people weren't even casual smokers, so users and abusers of the drug would be an even smaller minority. In comparison, who doesn't drink alcohol? That would be why Marijuana has a relatively low admittence rate in comparison to alcohol. And it's nowhere near as bad as meth or heroin, so this would explain why there are more meth addicts that are hospitalised.

Removing compulsory court admittance would help us determine the rate of medically necessitated marijuana treatment. As it is now there is too much confusion between those who seek help for actual marijuana dependence and that of court mandated admittance. It also boils down to what we addressed earlier in freeing up the studies of marijuana from the strict control of the DEA.

Also, depression as a temporary mental illness is something that affects many people at some point in their life. This opens the debate to the necessity of medical treatment and the role of pharmaceuticals in society. I'm of the opinion that people are overmedicated and misdiagnosed with illnesses that are nothing more than a common occurence in life.

Sorry if I've been a nuisance to you, that's all. I realise that in comparison, I do not really know as much as you. I think that personal bias is just really hard to change....

Not a nuisance at all. Most people pick one side or the other without even attempting to look at the available evidence. Personal bias can change quickly. I went from looking down on people who chose to drink to finding myself waking up from drug induced blackouts behind an abandoned grocery store. My interest in the whole issue arose from some discrepancies I saw in between how I was treated (adult white male) to that of some of my friends (minorities) under the criminal system as well as glaring inconsistencies in recovery.

I think you would find I'm more in line with some of your philosophy in that I do not wish to see more people using drugs. I would rather see less people. My primary concern is that of law enforcement and what decades of prohibition has meant for American society.

 

[Stellify]

This opens the debate to the necessity of medical treatment and the role of pharmaceuticals in society. I'm of the opinion that people are overmedicated and misdiagnosed with illnesses that are nothing more than a common occurence in life.

Tell me about it...it's a concern that pretty much every single psychology professor I've had has brought up...they wanted to impress upon all of us future psychologists & psychiatrists that it's wrong to just hand out drugs because it's the easy answer....It's a HUGE problem in today's society...If I had my notes on me, I would quote some figures to you that are utterly ludicrous.
:slap:

 

[gnomon]

Tell me about it...it's a concern that pretty much every single psychology professor I've had has brought up...they wanted to impress upon all of us future psychologists & psychiatrists that it's wrong to just hand out drugs because it's the easy answer....It's a HUGE problem in today's society...If I had my notes on me, I would quote some figures to you that are utterly ludicrous.
:slap:

From my experience at Ridgeview recovering drug addicts were pretty much prescribe an SSRI to help them with recovery. This struck me as strange considering that prescribing an anti-depressant medication to aid recovery could lead to the impression that the addict had a pre-existing condition rather than determining an actual need for the medication. It seemed automatic.

What concerned me most was the case of a roommate of mine at a 3/4 way house. I was diagnosed with manic-depression and schizophrenic symptoms after several months of study by my psychiatrist. I was on a wide variety of pills, up to seventeen a day, before being reduced to just Lithium and Busparine. But even then I was only on maybe eight different medications. My roommate was prescribed over 20 medications over the course of two years based solely on an episode in his late teens in which he punched a garage door. After those two years his last psychiatrist diagnosed him with a mild anxiety disorder and put him on just Busparine. For the five months I lived with him I watched him suffer some extreme side effects of the medications he was needlessly prescribed. A pscyhiatrist diagnosed him with bipolar after two sessions! Irresponsible.

In the recovery community taking individuals overcoming a chemical dependence it is very easy to convince them that they need medications to help them. Compared to actual data on recovery showing that as many self reported alcoholics recover on their own as they do in a community such as Alcoholics Anonymous the focus of recovery communities on the Minnesota model of recovery with it's ties to the pharmaceutical industry to prescribe medications even for something as Codependency seems rather loose and somewhat irresponsible. Not to mention the underlying insulting factor of the recovery method towards those of us who have experienced actual states of psychosis. Attending an AA meeting at one point of the day and a DBSA meeting later that day is similar to being in two different worlds.

I could go on for a long time about my experience. Needless to say after some time I found much to be gained from the spiritual recovery methods for many people and equivalently useful methods for others. What I have never been able to stomach are those pscyh's who are ready to hand out pills based upon minimal experience with their patients. Watching representatives form pharmaceutical companies walk into the hospital to meet with the psych's turned my stomach. I lucked out that my pscyh was willing to take a long time of observation before coming to a diagnosis.

 

[Stellify]

gnomon:
That blatant abuse of position makes me so angry.....psychiatrists are supposed to help people, not stuff them full of drugs and pass them off.
I really don't even have words.
When I was 14, my father and I got into a fight because he had done something selfish and petty. I was angry enough with him I kind of ignored him for a while because if I interacted with him, I knew I was going to be rude. He dragged me to a psychiatrist against my will, and told him I needed to be put on medication because of the way I was acting...but of course told the doc I was being crazy and moody for no reason (which I wasn't...I acted the same, just talked to my father less). When I went in for the appointment and he asked me why I needed to be put on medication, I was honest. I said something along the lines of "I don't. I'm only here because my father doesn't like being opposed in any way, and I'm mad at him for being an a**."...the guy didn't even listen. Just kind of went "uh huh" and handed me a prescription :sarcastic
I threw away every single pill.
And yet, the dr and my father both were pleased at how well the meds were working: look how functional I had become!

I have a huge problem with people like that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I had no idea the US did that. That sucks. I'm sorry...we can be right ******** sometimes

As annoying as that episode was, it didn't leave as bad a taste in our mouths here as the Helms-Burton Act, the law that let the American government sieze assets in the US of foreign companies doing business with Cuba.

But I should leave things there, lest I begin to rant.

I adore psychology. I want to have a private practice when I finish school and get some experience under my belt It's extremely useful in other ways, though...If you ever get the chance, you should take a class. Even if it's later in life

Although fairly soon I do have to have my own thesis/theses and perform research based on my own study, I can get into published articles sooner by helping another researcher with their work. I would be like a co-author.
Most times, non-Ph.D's have to have a Ph.D involved and co-authoring their work in order to get published, anyways. It lends credibility to the work.

BTW: my sister's currently working on her Masters in psychology on her way to a PhD.

 

[Stellify]

As annoying as that episode was, it didn't leave as bad a taste in our mouths here as the Helms-Burton Act, the law that let the American government sieze assets in the US of foreign companies doing business with Cuba.

But I should leave things there, lest I begin to rant.

Yikes
I feel like I should be apologizing..but I would never have done something like that, if it was up to me :cover:

BTW: my sister's currently working on her Masters in psychology on her way to a PhD.

Woot!
That's what I wanna do!

 

[methylatedghosts]

My point is, we really don't completely know the full effects that Marijuana can have on us. This is all the more proven when there are actually conflicting studies concerning its effects. Before we endorse it with open arms, more needs to be known about it. Maybe once we know more about it, we could legalise it, but continue to regulate it as is necessary as to avoid particular problems.

again I point you in this direction:

Cannabis.

In particular, check the health and medicinal section just down the page a little.

 

[DarkSun]

again I point you in this direction:

Cannabis.

In particular, check the health and medicinal section just down the page a little.

I had a brief skim through it when you provided it before, and I've skimmed through it again now.

And personally... I don't really trust a science site which has "mind and spirit" as one of the tabs up at the top of the page. Forgive the comparison, but it makes it look like some kind of Hippy site.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Personally, I agree with everything you've suggested, except your third point. Just because marijuana can be used to benefit people doesn't make it entirely safe. I mean, really, should morphene use be allowed without a doctor's direct supervision?

Morphine is very addictive. Comparing the two substances is not going to promote any point.

And removing laws just so that crime is reduced isn't entirely sensible. The crime would still be enacted, the only difference is that it would be legal. Heh... Making crime legal is the same as advocating anarchy in the end.

Again, anarchy and the decriminalization of marijuana have completely different outcomes.

And even though there is a significant amount of evidence which suggests that Marijuana may be used as such to "correct" the make-up of some people, there are still studies which suggest an opposite effect on some people. Perhaps that is a reason why marijuana should be harshly scrutinised if it ever is used as an alternative anti-depressant.

We know more about marijuana than we do about aspirin. Not only that, there are all the people who have use this substance for recreational purposes for decades and live productive lives.

We wouldn't want to legalise it blindly, now, would we?

Nor would we...we already have a great understanding of this substance. I'm not dismissing further research.

No, just no. :no:

Just say KNOW. :yes:

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The crime would still be enacted, the only difference is that it would be legal. Heh... Making crime legal is the same as advocating anarchy in the end.

How is legalizing a crime advocating Anarchy? Anarchy means there is no central government to rule, not a lawless civilization.