In response to:

The War on Pot: Not a Safe Bet

Cleombrotus2011 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 8:21 AM
"As recreational drugs go, marijuana is relatively benign. Unlike alcohol, it doesn't stimulate violence or destroy livers. Unlike tobacco, it doesn't cause lung cancer and heart disease. The worst you can say is that it produces intense, unreasoning panic. Not in users, but in critics." Steve Chapman has obviously never smoked pot for any extended period of time. What it does do, negatively, is documented. It narcoticizes the neural pathways in the brain slowing or otherwise impairing cognitive functioning, essentially slowing down the transmission of electrical impulses and rendering thinking ineffective or distorted. Coupled with that are the psychological affects that produce as effective an addiction as a physical addiction.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 9:49 AM
Marijuana is NOT addictive in any way, unless you want to define the term "addiction" out of existence by saying that anyone who wants to continue a certain habit is therefore "addicted" to it.

By that standard, if I like taking morning walks, and feel lousy when I miss a day, I am "addicted" to taking morning walks.

The traditional and proper definition of addiction means being unable to stop using a substance without severe, physical withdrawal symptoms. By that more proper standard, heroin is definitely addictive. Somewhat less addictive is tobacco, with withdrawal symptoms like nervousness, heightened sensitivity to sound, and inability to concentrate.
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 11:44 AM
Paulus: I think your 9:52 post is the much better argument.
Cleombrutus: I doesn't matter whether or not it's bad for you. It's not your place or the governments to regulate activities between consenting adults, i.e. the sale, purchase, and consumption of marijuana.
Cleombrotus2011 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 12:21 PM
Paulus: there is PHYSICAL addictions and there are PSYCHOLOGICAL addictions. Don't confuse the two. In the early 1970's I was psychologically addicted to mrijuana.

Matthew, I don't recall addressing the issue of legalization or prohibition of marijuana.
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 12:30 PM
It's implied by your vilification.
rivenburg Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 5:13 PM
" In the early 1970's I was psychologically addicted to mrijuana."

So your lack of self control in the 1970s should mean we listen to your type about how to run OUR lives forever, backed by armed government goons and private prisons?

project elsewhere clem, the astonishing lack of Constitutional thinking here disqualifies you as trustworthy.
Cleombrotus2011 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 8:24 AM
The other psychological affects range from mild paranoia to a decrease in an otherwise healthy approach to the normal everyday responsibilities that most people develop.
Cleombrotus2011 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 8:29 AM
It is also important to note that, unlike alcohol which is not always taken with the intention of getting drunk, the point of smoking pot is, deliberately, to get high.
rk58 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 10:12 PM
@Cleombrotus2011: so what? The issue is personal responsibility vs. an authoritarian stance by the US government. Not what is good for you. Clearly beer is *not* good for you when taken above a certain amount.. yet folks do that all the time. Liberty = people allowed to live their lives as the like, as long as it doesn't directly hurt others.
As recreational drugs go, marijuana is relatively benign. Unlike alcohol, it doesn't stimulate violence or destroy livers. Unlike tobacco, it doesn't cause lung cancer and heart disease. The worst you can say is that it produces intense, unreasoning panic. Not in users, but in critics.

Those critics have less influence all the time. Some 18 states permit medical use of marijuana, and in November, Colorado and Washington voted to allow recreational use. Nationally, support for legalization is steadily rising. A decade ago, one of every three Americans favored the idea. Today, nearly half do -- and among those under 50, a large...