Why are people against marijuana still, in 2014?

You never answered my questions. What's the difference between natural and artificial sugars when they're both sugars. You're out of your mind if you think sugar is more addicting then some hard drugs. It doesn't matter what a study suggest it's just common sense.

 

"doesn't matter what a study suggests, it's just common sense" = all credibility lost. Right there.

I have answered your question. Added sugars are sugars added to a food for the purpose of taste and processing. Natural sugars are inherently present in the food to begin with. There are many different sugars (fructose, glucose, lactose, sucrose and the list goes on), however added sugars primarily seem to consist of fructose and sucrose, maybe glucose in some cases.

It is not a matter of whether or not we would consume these things anyway, it is a matter of overconsumption. One may be dosed with morphine and not be addicted, but overconsumption ultimately leads to addiction. Overconsumption of sugars (via added sugars in processing) leads us to crave sweet foods, and for many, many people these cravings are unthrowable.

Furthermore, giving up all ADDED sugar in ones diet and living off a purely natural sugar diet (thus still consuming the required amount of carbon energy we need to function) would lead to withdrawal symptoms and cravings so bad they're painful. Keeping in mind this is all the while still consuming the required amount of sugar to maintain a healthy diet.

Now, may I suggest we stop derailing this topic?

 

You could get a study to suggest pretty much anything if you try, but that doesn't mean they're right. That's why study's are peer reviewed and not every study's suggestions are deemed facts.

I'm just saying I don't see any way how your initial statement is correct. Unless you can show me this study and it's very convincing.

I'm sure giving up added sugar for some people would be uncomfortable, but it probably wouldn't be as bad if they increased the amount of natural sugar they ate.

 

I haven't been able to find the cited study published on the NOV 10 2014 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/2/

No such issue.

 

The U.S. is wasting on average of $51 billion a year with a failed drug war, not counting the $15 billion it costs to incarcerate the offenders. Marijuana is going to be smoked with or without government involvement. Instead of cutting educational funding, cutting budgets as whole, states could regulate Marijuana and bring in hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

I've yet to find an argument that I think truly has a good basis on why the drug is flat-out-illegal.

Outside of whether it's good or bad for you, I have the right to smoke it. That's it. The government (or people in general) have no legitimate authority to tell me I cannot consume something that is effecting no one but myself.

Well at the most basic level, artificial sugars are not natural, they're made by humans, they're like a synthetic material. Artificial sugars have a different chemical makeup and your body (specifically your gut and your brain) handle them differently.

As Swan said, "just common sense" completely derails everything you have said. Anyone can use "just common sense" for anything.

"The Jews caused Germany all it's hardship, it's why we're shipping them off to concentration camps! It's just common sense!"

Anyway, yes correlation does not mean causation and you can relate anything to anything and potentially find a pattern that "proves" what you want. While I'm not sure how much you and Swan have gone back and fourth (I've only looked at the back page), sugar stimulates your brain in a similar way to drugs. It lights up the reward-system in your brain and makes you want more. It doesn't come without its' risk and meets the requirements to fall under a substance abuse (meeting 2-3/11 systems, ex: withdraw.)

As for the study, it goes along the lines of rats will choose sugar over cocaine as a stimulant an overwhelming percentage of the time. Another study (I believe done by Dr. Mark Hyman) found that rats were 8x more likely to go for sugar than cocaine.

can read an article about it all here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html
study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...:+pushing+the+drug-sugar+analogy+to+the+limit
recent study regarding oreos/heroin/cocaine: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsu...ine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/

 

I agree with you and your reasoning where you used this line. But don't you see that a person with an opposing view will not get what you mean and only see that you are comparing him to Hitler?

 

Ehh, I wasn't as clear as I could of been, but I imagine someone reading that and "Anyone can use "just common sense" for anything" prior has the ability to infer what I am getting at.

Also, that in no way is a comparison of the individual to Hitler. Is it a comparison of using the ideology-like saying "it's just common sense" to justify actions/laws/events/everything else. It's the same as "that's how it has always been" or "that's just how we do things." Just because it is traditional does not make it legitimate.

 

I'm against it because it smells like shit.

I don't care if people smoke it, and I think it should be legalized, but if it does get legalized hopefully they can make it odorless...

 

Vapourised weed is essentially odourless from my experience. It's also a really pleasant smell when you mix it in with hookah flavoured molasses; makes everything smell like fruits and flowers.

 

My argument is this. Most people who are addicted to a hard drug would give up sugar (natural or artificial) instead of the hard drug, if forced. I don't think you would say that this study claims to disprove that. Common sense is subjective, but my deduction is obvious having a basic understanding of addiction.

Of coarse, things that appear obvious are not always true. But if someone is going to argue against a seemingly obvious claim then they better have very convincing evidence.

There's only a newspaper article and an abstract of a study, which I have concerns regarding my point.
1. The study was done on rats and not humans.
2. Where the rats addicted to cocaine before entering the experiment?
3. Where the rats given ample alternative food?

 

This is an interesting debate. And you are of course wrong. But let's assume that you are right. Do you realize that you still have to convince us that this is a good reason to incarcerate people that smoke weed?

 

I'm not talking about weed. My only point is the second sentence. I'm all for weed legalization.

 

To be overly honest I'm not at all interested in debating a study I know very little about. I do not find the study interesting and I do not care to read up on it.

Anyway, I would not say it disproves that at all. What it is saying is that it is more likely for you to develop a dependency on sugar than cocaine.

I'm making up the heroin stat, I'm not going to spend time looking it all up so bear with me. Lets say Heroin has a 24% dependency rate (it's way higher than that) and tobacco has a 48% dependency rate (it is actually 33% and Marijuana is 9%.) Now, would someone whom is addicted to heroin give it up for tobacco even though tobacco is twice as addicting? No, probably not, but when smoking tobacco, you would have twice the probability of becoming addicted to it than heroin (totally not true, but trying to provide an example without having to spend time researching this.)

1. Yes, but that's pretty much how most studies are done. Most people would argue studying such things are not exactly ethical.
2. No
3. From what I have read prior, there were studies in the 70's where it was a completely alternative result, but the rats were completely isolated and only had the option between sugar and cocaine, that's it. They would literally hit the cocaine trigger until they died. There was no reward/punishment system (ex: little shock, etc.) In this study, I'm rather confident that rats had "normal environment" with cocaine/sugar added. Lets also be sure to note that tests done in the 70s-80s were largely focused on the negative sides of such drugs (as they still often are today, look at Marijuana research.)

 

Burundanga (I don't know the name in english) is a drug made from completely natural plants primarily found in colombia. The effects have been likened to a hallucinogenic date rape drug that removes your decision making ability so you just follow instructions given to you. After the effects fade you remember nothing. During the effects of the drug you seem normal to strangers and there have been stories of people being convinced to let robbers into their homes and then proceed to help them carry all of their furniture and belongings out of their apartment.

My point is not that weed is bad nor that it should be illegal simply that the mindless arguments about how "it's just a plant" or "it's natural god made it" are all bullshit and take away from the real arguments to legalize it. I will not get into those here because I imagine they have been beaten through a hundred times and at this point I think most people can agree that the only significant difference of opinion arises from people's predisposed morality and/or lack of education. I will say, however, I believe that if you're deriving your morality from religious or spiritual teachings then you should be ashamed and should also rethink your life decisions.

 

I saw a documentary on that drug in columbia.. straight crazy lol

 

To many haters out there that's why. it can be medical

 

theres probably a lot of factors, old generation that doesn't want it, governments, doctors, etc. but it will be here, it will.

 

Cause it can fuck up lifes.

 

So can alcohol, so can paracetamol, so can love, so can knifes. They are not illegal.

It's retarded if you ask me. The thing is, seems it's classed as an illegal drug, once it's illegal, many people will be against legalising it as they will think the government doesn't care about peoples well-being (allowing them to take drugs). That's one interpretation.

 

lol weed can fuck up lives? no, thats if you let it fuck up your life, exactly with admirer, do you know how many deaths alcohol has caused? how many lives have been lost cause of things other then weed?, and this shit that kills people is still legal