I've extensively studied both sides of the argument, but I was curious as to if any of the more experienced members had some angles and arguments besides the obvious ones. Anything you've thought of?
Define "The Obvious Ones." I want to make sure you haven't missed any that might be considered obvious, or missed an anti-cannabis talking point. Good luck, by the way.
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection - washingtonpost.com Good info on the non cancer side of it. 0 deaths Can't od If I think of some ill repost I guess lol
Give me the list of anti-cannabis talking points and I will give an extensive report, facts, charts, graphs, studies, tests, information, research, a personal synopsis, all the debunking that can be given, and anything else I can find to include. Those talking points you don't list will be filled in by me and consist of all the same information that is pertinent to the subject. Here's a simple list with minimal explanation even though I could likely write a book on each talking point. Gateway Theory - It is true that marijuana might be around other narcotics which may lead to the use of something other than marijuana. This boils down to personal ethics and choice. The propagandic gateway theory says you will hit marijuana and have a needle in your arm the next hour. This is the lie. If legalized, or even decriminalized, the whole 'gateway theory' would be out the window since marijuana would no longer be classified as criminalistic. This results in marijuana being seen at a non-narcotic level and not held by nearly as many narcotics dealers as it is now. Marijuana and Health Theory - Lies and propaganda to steer children, and even adults who are uneducated, away from marijuana is one that says marijuana is bad for your health. One branch of thousands of lies says it effects your brain but that has been proved otherwise. This theory originated in a lab where monkeys smoked joints daily for a period of time which resulted in brain damage. The truth later was released that suffocation with sixty joints, in a row, were used daily and resulted in oxygen deprivation which causes brain damage. The other branch of thousands of lies says that marijuana kills, hospitalizes, and kills your lungs. Marijuana does substantially less to your lungs then cigarettes. What damage is done is due to heated plant matter entering your lungs and being held there. If there was a plant containing zero chemicals, it too would cause damage due to heated particles, not because of chemicals in marijuana. Marijuana is also medicine for a vast and diverse variety of illnesses and medical issues. I'm almost positive no other medication serves for half as many purposes as marijuana but somehow it hospitalizes. Lastly, marijuana use has never recorded a death while tobacco and alcohol hits thousands and thousands every year! Fact is, you cannot smoke the amount of marijuana in the given period of time for a lethal dosage. Some realize this but claim, since edibles are more potent, that edibles can be overdosed on but your stomach cannot fit a quantity anywhere near the lethal dosage. THC Content Theory - A rather absurd and desperate attempt at the continuation of prohibition is a theory that claims THC content found in today's marijuana is greater then what the parents and grand-parents of this generation smoked. This is a flat out, blatant lie that means nothing because they are theory crafted statements with no evidence or proof. Not to re-mention the fact that the THC is not contributing to any damage but the heated plant particle is. And, once again, inhaling heated plant particle is possible without THC's presence or the presence of any chemical. The Addiction Theory - Those who propose that marijuana is addictive and actually believe in it's addictiveness despite studies and indisputable proof, are clearly blind and stubborn. Marijuana releases no chemicals in the brain that cause mental or physical addiction, what so ever. Excluding your increased boredom, nothing, and I mean nothing, else is changed or effected from subtle marijuana deprivation. It is held true that marijuana creates dependencies that are easily ignored. These dependencies are, without a doubt, substantially less bothering then the addiction of caffeine. Caffeine can even become a physical addiction that results in pain such as headaches because of caffeine deprivation or even mental addiction that results in you believing you actually need it to do something. Even if caffeine does not take control in such a way, addiction is always present and always a more intense grasp on your patience towards the deprivation. This makes the comparison of marijuana to devastatingly addicting drugs completely invalid because they are on totally opposite ends of the scale. The only statistic that proves true is the enormous majority of patients in rehab under the age of twenty-five are there for marijuana. Through deeper study of this statistic, a flaw was found that lead to the debunking of the statistic. The percent of patients in this age group that were attending for marijuana use under free will and choice hovered under 5% and still does today. The rest were ordered by a court, their parents, or influenced by their parents, friends, family, et cetera so their belief that they were addicted to an non-addictive substance, like the 5%, is absent. Stereotype Theory - Placing a generalization over all marijuana users and incorrectly classifying those marijuana users who work just as hard and are just as motivated as someone who is sober, is just wrong. I can, have for years, and will continue to use marijuana as my motivation to get things done and not only that, but to get them done the right way, with effort, and with haste. I can do everything while high as I can do while sober with equal or greater positive outcome which refutes the lie that production while high results in negative outcomes. It is unfortunate that some marijuana users perpetuate this stereotype and don't even realize they are setting themselves and their constant cries for legalization, back in it's process. The stereotypical theory includes that these so called 'unmotivated workers' are scum who are wrong for feeling the need to be altered by a chemical. These same theory crafters that claim needing something is wrong often need a beer and / or nicotine during times of frustration, times of stress, or after work. Why a joint cannot be my beer and /or my cigarette, I do not understand. The simple fact of the matter is that the theoretical lies aimed at anti-cannabis propaganda all lack credible basis, credible proof, truth, reasoning, or credible experimentation results. They are nothing more than lies or opinions about marijuana that have been, more or less, brainwashed into the children of many generations since the 1930s. That is when the lies started which became belief by the second generation after prohibition. Some do not get the concept but it is the understanding that, because one generation was told it was wrong from birth. That generation told their generation because they heard it when they were kids. This first generation was given no reasoning as to why it shouldn't be used other than the good ol' fashion "because I said so". In essence, this expression was used at birth in each generation which created a cycle of unreasonable requests to deny marijuana. What the generation of parents, at least those that were middle-aged when prohibition was implemented, didn't share the truth but spread the lies instead. The truth is that the monopoly of one man in the paper business was losing all business due to hemp, and / or it's production, being more durable, more easily obtained, and cheaper then traditional tree-made paper. As shown true with a majority of monopolists in history, the monopolist of the paper industry at this time was already highly involved in the government. Because of his involvement, bribes, and under the table pay offs of many government officials, he was successful in convincing the government to agree with prohibition. But due to the flaw in reasoning for prohibiting marijuana, they could not strictly ban it. Instead they banned it for anyone who did not receive or own a token from the government that allowed possession. The thing is, not a single one was ever handed out. And as a result, the strict ban on marijuana you see and generously tolerate today became an implementation.
You could maybe talk about the evolution of endocannibinoid receptors in mammals. If we evolved with them, there must be a purpose for them.
the number of people that have died and are incarcerated from the war on drugs and how that negatively affects communities and only increases the same cycle of violence and drug use
i lead a debate about this last year. theres over 22,000,000 people in prison for marijuana related crimes. cost i think $68 or something around that much to keep someone in jail so talk about how much we'd save. if anyone says something about how its addictive prove them wrong or talk about how nicotine was proven to be just as addictive as heroin yet it's legal. talk about potential tax dollars from marijuana and if anyone says anything about stoners being lazy and not productive members of society bring up Micheal Phelps and the guy that won the ididarod (sp?) tha crazy dog sleding race in alaska has a green card hope i helped sorry i forgot the sources
I did well in my social problems class by describing it as a from of discrimination. The simple fact is that arrests for all drugs (cocaine laws are the worst) are extremely disproportionate across race. Not only that but the sentencing tends to be much heavier for arrested non whites than it does for arrested Caucasians. I don't have my old debate notes but here is a quick link if your just talking about it. Don't forget to have your own points about why the current system hurts America. You do not want to only be responding to the oppositions points. Have fun and tear them apart, it should be pretty easy Decades of Disparity | Human Rights Watch
You'd help your case if you went into the benefits of hemp aswell as just smoking that shit. The medicinal uses, the paper it can produce (thus averting deforestation), the clothes, the durable plastic. The list is nearly endless, but i'm too baked to remeber it.
Remember, they're going to say crap like "it's 4 times more tar than a single cigarette". Trying to convince them is near impossible. Once brainwashed, probably always will be brainwashed.
The tar and carcinogens are of greater consistency in marijuana when compared with tobacco product. It is more accurate to say that it is only two times more tar consistent. This is because the thick nature of the smoke and the resin created because of this. Carcinogens in one joint are said to be equivalent to three cigarettes which is within' reasonable belief. The simple fact of the matter is that 80% of cigarette users will smoke up to three cigarettes, or more, every one to two hours. Even in the lowest ranges it is found that three cigarettes will be smoked in a four hour period. At this low, a joint is still going to be healthier in the long run because a second joint will not be needed for up to four hours. Obvious correlation says that a greater number of cigarettes will be smoked before the need for a second joint is apparent. This makes marijuana healthier in the long run by these standards. Of course, for medical uses and the lack of thousands of chemicals that are contained in each cigarette, marijuana is indisputably healthier when viewed by these standards.
I'm not denying that, but it's pathetic they keep using it as an excuse to be against it. It's pointless. A cheeseburger is extremely unhealthy, sitting in a chair all day is unhealthy, stress is unhealthy, everything is unhealthy to a certain degree so on. A healthy state of mind makes you feel better. When you're stressed, there's an arsenal of problems heading ones way. Makes you more prone to becoming sick in some way. If marijuana is my tool to keep that healthy state of mind, then it's my medicine. Oh wait I forgot, doctor told me to take these pills. Which turned me into a freakin zombie without feelings.
I don't know exactly what you consider the obvious arguments but you probably know more than enough. People arguing prohibition use the same crappy arguments every time. I debated legalization in front of my school and to prepare, I went to above the influence and looked at all their shitty points about why it should be illegal. Then, I went online and found reputable articles that refuted every one of the points on above the influence. I printed them and kept them handy for the debate. For my speech, I basically took the most common points for prohibition and refuted them. Then I pointed out all the benefits of marijuana and how people who want to use it already do regardless of the law. If the opposing side some how brings up something you don't know how to refute, you can always default to how we live in a supposedly free country and that alcohol and tobacco kill and harm way more people than marijuana. EDIT: After typing all this, I just realized that this is all too late for the OP. But someone else could read this later.