The following is an anti-cannabis post along with my reply. I was hoping ya'll might weigh in here.

[Ed Suspicious]

Let me know if my argument is weak or if I'm doing harm to the cause of retraction on the prohibition of cannabis. Is it ok to accept his premise that "Marijuana HAS been proven to be addictive, both physically and psychologically. It's use has been connected to increased stroke risk, permanently lower IQ and motor function, and various cancer risks."?

His post in response to Michael Botticelli testimony on the Obama administration's marijuana policy at a hearing before congress where the representative from Oregon was testing Botticelli's resolve on the perils of cannabis use.

Depends on the personality and chemistry. Marijuana HAS been proven to be addictive, both physically and psychologically. It's use has been connected to increased stroke risk, permanently lower IQ and motor function, and various cancer risks. There is no proof that marijuana, in its basic form, cures any cancer, regardless of internet claims. Why are people advocating for something that will pose an increased societal health risk, when , at the same time, we are supposed to be living in an enlightened period of health risks around us? We want to eliminate tobacco use, yet advocate for this?

My reply

The biggest risk associated with using cannabis is one imposed by the state. The biggest risk is not that cannabis inherently destroys cognitive and motor function in adults (although I suppose one could make an argument that it has an effect on cognition and motor function). The biggest risk to users of cannabis is that of getting caught using cannabis. Getting caught using cannabis is the destroyer of lives. Not partaking of the substance itself.

If you want to approach cannabis use as a societal health risk akin to tobacco or sugary snacks or beer, wine, and liquor, or gambling, then more power to you. However, if your prescription against what you view as a societal problem is a prescription that endorses locking people up, confiscating their possessions, and putting a permanent red mark on their record simply for engaging in the use of a substance without consideration for any actual victimizing crime that might have been committed under it's influence, well that I cannot get behind. We don't jail people for smoking cigarettes - we persuade them that it is not advantageous to do so. We don't imprison people who don't exercise enough and drink large, sugary sodas and snacks.

The law enforcement driven "drug war" model is a stupid model for reducing the societal impacts of a relatively benign substance. I know drug warriors are not fans of the relativist argument, but what remains true anecdotally (and I'm sure if proper scientific study were available could or maybe even has been shown clinically) is that alcohol is a more dangerous substance to society than cannabis, but still we repealed prohibition of alcohol and have made a decision that we are willing to accept the well known risks associated with that product.

To me it is asinine to continue to fill our prisons with dark skinned users of a substance that simply does not pose risks that rise the the insidious level that a fully legal but regulated substance in alcohol. In my opinion we treat alcohol the right way. We regulate production, we tax consumption, we limit activities such as driving while under the influence, but we do not throw people in jail simply for imbibing. It's time to right the ship that went so far astray in the 1930s and then again in the 1970s. It's time to get real.

[longship]

1. That is a cogent argument. R&K nt

[fredamae]

2. The argument is settled

December 10, 2013-the Cannabis Monograph was released by the National Herbal Pharmacopeia
informing us that in fact-cannabis is not a Drug-it is, in fact-a Botanical Medicine.
Cannabis is not physically addictive. It's not a Drug. It affects a different part of the brain than Heroin, Meth, Nicotine, Pharma etc. One who might be predisposed to psychological dependencies can become dependent-but not addicted. It is completely mis-leading to ever compare cannabis to alcohol, nicotine and all other drugs. Cannabis is singularly unique in its properties and compounds. It's closest and only relative that I am aware of are Hops and Industrial Hemp.
Lawmakers and heads of agencies either deny the science and it's information or they have not been educated about the issues of their responsibilities well enuf to be making decisions about how to govern them-including whether or not these substances even Should be governed by Anyone outside of our doctors and scientists.
Here is a link to the remarkable Re-admittance of cannabis into the National Herbal Pharmacopeia. Remember cannabis had been listed in this class of Herbal Medicines for Decades prior to the Prohibition of it's use in the mid-1930'- They removed it in 1942. In 2013 it has been replaced to it's proper context. I just ordered a copy.
http://www.naturalnews.com/043288_cannabis_botanical_medicine_American_Herbal_Pharmacopoeia.html

In 1988 the DEA's own ALJ published his findings of fact and concluded..."16. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care."
http://www.ccguide.org/young88.php
The entire thing here:
http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/MEDICAL/YOUNG/young.html

The entire two hour long hearing yesterday was an most excellent discussion/debate. If you have the interest and the time-I highly encourage watching it. Comments are open for two weeks and this was the fist of more hearings on Marijuana Policy.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?317590-1/MarijuanaPo

[theaocp]

3. Your reply is great

though I might break it into smaller chunks for better reading. That said, I usually just turn the tables on people by claiming that they must want prohibition of tobacco and alcohol. If they agree, I end the argument by telling them to go and advocate for it. If they disagree, I name them shameless hypocrite and quite possibly, a drunk. Either way, they get to drink a tall glass of STFU juice.

[SomethingFishy]

4. It's a great response...

And now we have a model for legalization. The morning of January 1st Coloradans stood in line in the freezing cold to be the first Americans to legally purchase Cannabis for recreational use. There were no arrests, no fights, nothing sold to minors, and as one of the people in line I can safely say that it was nothing more than a bunch of adults, mostly in their 40's and above, buying their weed without the fear of the repercussions you laid out in your response.

On January 2nd, the Earth did not spin off it's axis, the sun rose in the east and set in the west and hordes of Crazed Cannabis Zombies did not crawl out of the woodwork. The world went about it's day.

And that seals their fate. I predict 75% of the states legalize within 5 years and Federal legalization within 10.

[RainDog]

5. First - stupid things the person said

Marijuana/addictive

- it's about as addictive as coffee. So let's also make Starbucks illegal, amiright?

To claim it's connected to this risk or another indicates more research needs to be done. The reality that millions smoked marijuana without adverse effects, even while illegal, might present an argument about risks. But that would require legal status in order to perform such research.

There is no proof that marijuana, in its basic form, cures any cancer...

This doesn't matter. What does matter is that research on marijuana is stifled by its illegal status.

...but, for reference, there is that boy whose brain tumors shrank because his dad put cannabis oil into his iv...

There is proof that marijuana is useful for other illnesses, in particular side effects from medicines, like chemo. This, in and of itself, is a reason to allow smoked or vaped cannabis. Marijuana is the single most effective anti-nausea treatment available. Nausea prevents people from utilizing medicine. Nausea causes wasting in cancer patients. Marijuana does and has saved lives.

Why another legal substance? Because, first and foremost, things should not be illegal, for the most part, imo.

Marijuana use is a victimless crime. The overwhelming marjority who use or have used marijuana have no adverse effects.

How can anyone be such an ass as to prefer to put people in jail rather than just leave someone alone?

Not to mention, as you note, that marijuana's illegal status is used to target minorities as part of this nation's history of racism.

I can only assume that the most privileged and thoughtless among us would support such a state in this nation. Or the racists.

Personally, I don't care about tobacco use. If someone wants to smoke - their choice. Someone wants to eat sugar? Their choice.

Of course we want to provide good information to make good choices, but I don't want to raid the Baptist churches and lock up all the grandmas making pies and cakes and dealing that drug to the congregation, any more than I want to lock up grandmas using marijuana to ease their aches and pains, or their nausea, and so on.

The costs of tobacco prohibition would outweigh any gains - and, in fact, the reason tobacco cessation has worked in this nation is BECAUSE it is legal. It's astonishing to me that people think simply making something illegal will make it disappear. It just makes more social problems.

Marijuana is safer than alcohol. As far as harm reduction goes, we would all be better off if more men, in particular, smoked marijuana and drank less or not at all. We would have lower rates of domestic violence, fewer traffic accidents...

I just can't understand why some people are such authoritarians that they can't appreciate the benefits of choice and rational responses to issues like substance use.

[postatomic]

6. I like your reply

A couple of weeks ago on the teevee (Colorado) they had a touching story about a family that moved to Colorado so they could get legal herb with a low THC to treat their 4 year old daughter that was an epileptic. After giving the low dose the child stop having seizures after 4 days. Father said; "this is first time I've had my daughter in 4 years." Many other families are moving to Colorado so they can give their children treatments that would land them in jail in what ever State they came from.

Fact Is: The only real funding of marijuana research is being done to prove it is a horrible drug. If they'd take some of that research money to do non-biased research I think there would be some very positive conclusions. Pot isn't a 'cure all', but IMO it does have some medical advantages to it.

The ball is rolling. Before you know it some future President will be offering their guests Pot instead of alcohol.

[Scuba]

7. The National Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes of Health ....

... states that cannibus can have an "anti-tumor effect".

At least they did at the time I took this screen shot, although there was political pressure being applied trying to get them to remove the statement.

[Adrahil]

8. My Reply

Lots of things we do every day are dangerous, unwise, and/or unhealthful. We don't outlaw quite a few of them, much less spend billions of dollars putting people in jail in a completely unproductive effort to stop that behavior.

WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.

[sorefeet]

9. We have been allowed very little

research on marijuana for 70 fucking years, because the government says it has no medical value. But all of a sudden these right wing thumpers are an authority on the dangers of marijuana. They have never touched the shit but they KNOW???? They KNOW how it takes your fucking mind and ruins your life????? These are the low information voters that the right wing radio has brain washed.