Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every research done has shown that pot is not a gateway drug. The original study was flawed because it was done in reverse. They decided that because hard drug users had done pot, that pot led to hard drugs. That is not the way such a study is done and this was recognized as being flawed. In fact, follow up studies that were done properly confirmed that pot is not a gateway drug.
Interesting. I didn't know this. Can you name the person or a link so I can further read?
One of the issues with studies of marijuana is that it is a catch 22 when a drug ends up on the schedule 1. It is difficult for independent research to be funded when it remains a schedule 1 at the federal level. Usually schedule 1 substances, which are deemed to have no acceptable medical value, have already had the research to prove so. In the case of Marijuana, that wasn't the case but I could never find out why.
The Shafer Commission appointed by Nixon you will find is quite interesting reading. When they didn't come to the conclusion Nixon wanted, he disregarded their findings and started The War On Drugs instead:
The Commission's report said that while public sentiment tended to view marijuana users as dangerous, they actually found users to be more timid, drowsy and passive. It concluded that cannabis did not cause widespread danger to society. It recommended using social measures other than criminalization to discourage use. It compared the situation of cannabis to that of alcohol.
Interesting. I didn't know this. Can you name the person or a link so I can further read?
One of the issues with studies of marijuana is that it is a catch 22 when a drug ends up on the schedule 1. It is difficult for independent research to be funded when it remains a schedule 1 at the federal level. Usually schedule 1 substances, which are deemed to have no acceptable medical value, have already had the research to prove so. In the case of Marijuana, that wasn't the case but I could never find out why.
During hearings on marijuana law in the 1930’s, claims were made about marijuana’s ability to cause men of color to become violent and solicit sex from white women. This imagery became the backdrop for the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 which effectively banned its use and sales.
While the Act was ruled unconstitutional years later, it was replaced with the Controlled Substances Act in the 1970’s which established Schedules for ranking substances according to their dangerousness and potential for addiction. Cannabis was placed in the most restrictive category, Schedule I, supposedly as a place holder while then President Nixon commissioned a report to give a final recommendation.
The Schafer Commission, as it was called, declared that marijuana should not be in Schedule I and even doubted its designation as an illicit substance. However, Nixon discounted the recommendations of the commission, and marijuana remains a Schedule I substance.
I gave you two separate examples to illustrate the logical fallacy you're employing. Either you can't comprehend it or you choose to not understand it. Regardless, you haven't articulated why the motives involved in the crafting of drug laws nearly a century ago invalidate today's drug laws. Instead, you either pretend or do not pick up on the fact that I'm not disputing some of the racist origins of those laws but rather am disputing your flawed logic.
You failed to use logical fallacy correctly. You simply don't agree and firmly based your stance on the idea that ends justify the means. Your illustrations are built on "what ifs' and "let says".
I have already mentioned several real examples that this isn't the case even mentioned a landmark supreme court case.
If your line of reasoning is built on the assumption that Marijuana is a controlled substance because it is dangerous, then you absolutely should know that the underlying intent behind the reason why it exists on that list of controlled substance is due to racism weakens your stance. Furthermore, many laws have been revisited when the underlying reason is unfounded... protection of the notion of separation of races and that women must be protected from voting. There are many more.
Let's not forget that this is really at best a states rights issue..... not a federal one.
During hearings on marijuana law in the 1930’s, claims were made about marijuana’s ability to cause men of color to become violent and solicit sex from white women. This imagery became the backdrop for the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 which effectively banned its use and sales.
While the Act was ruled unconstitutional years later, it was replaced with the Controlled Substances Act in the 1970’s which established Schedules for ranking substances according to their dangerousness and potential for addiction. Cannabis was placed in the most restrictive category, Schedule I, supposedly as a place holder while then President Nixon commissioned a report to give a final recommendation.
The Schafer Commission, as it was called, declared that marijuana should not be in Schedule I and even doubted its designation as an illicit substance. However, Nixon discounted the recommendations of the commission, and marijuana remains a Schedule I substance.
The Shafer Commission appointed by Nixon you will find is quite interesting reading. When they didn't come to the conclusion Nixon wanted, he disregarded their findings and started The War On Drugs instead:
You failed to use logical fallacy correctly. You simply don't agree and firmly based your stance on the idea that ends justify the means. Your illustrations are built on "what ifs' and "let says".
I have already mentioned several real examples that this isn't the case even mentioned a landmark supreme court case.
If your line of reasoning is built on the assumption that Marijuana is a controlled substance because it is dangerous, then you absolutely should know that the underlying intent behind the reason why it exists on that list of controlled substance is due to racism weakens your stance. Furthermore, many laws have been revisited when the underlying reason is unfounded... protection of the notion of separation of races and that women must be protected from voting. There are many more.
Let's not forget that this is really at best a states rights issue..... not a federal one.
My stance on the danger of marijuana is medically-based and medically-established, particularly for young people.
Yes, you're employing a logical fallacy when you claim the intentions of the lawmakers necessarily invalidates current law. That's an absurd argument.
I sometimes post on the very bad impact of drug legalization, such as increased car crashes and ED visits. I was talking to a friend in the medical field and she mentioned the massive increase in drop out rates in states that legalized drugs. I had not heard of this (media blackout?) but I did some research and found it to be true:
We agreed to let states set marijuana policy for a few years without federal interference because we want to use states as laboratories and get some data. The data are in and they stink. I don’t know how any parent in America can support this based on the above study and all the negative impact we are seeing as a result of legalization. The experiment has failed. Time to lock American’s dangerous drugs back in the cabinet.
Moving on from straws huh?
Ill take a drop out stoner over a rabid control freak any day
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
