Cannabis is not risk free and is not special in terms of its medical applicability.

In fairness it is an impossible resolution. Can yiu reframe it and I may take a stab. It is an important discussion to have.

It’s even more disappointing when the opponent is chirping in the comments the entire debate but not making arguments. I think he expected an easy debate with someone who doesn’t know anything about drugs.

When you’re free just go ahead and invite me to the debate with the same title or same general idea.

Yes. But not now. I just got into others and hit my limit. I dont want to say when I can do it or when to schedule it as I can not predict my schedule.

When I am free, I can send message about it.

I’m working Night Shift so all of my replies will be late in the day if not very early in the morning. I’m in the eastern time zone.

There can be, are you interested in having the debate?

Will there be another one of theses?

If I invite you to a debate about the legalization of all drugs will you accept? I’m just gonna go ahead and do it. Let’s hash it out there, accept or not, up to you.

The document does not allow people to infringe on the rights of others simply by majority. Which is why they are considered unalienable rights. Along with life and Liberty. That would be like saying if the majority thinks we need to kill the Jews it should be legally covered by the document.

In regard to Sir.Lancelot:
I tagged you because I quite obviously wanted your understanding of the matter, not any other reason. I noticed your previous involvement in a similar discussion and was hoping to get another perspective.

In regard to Mps1213:
It is contradictory to use the very document that grants the right to pursue happiness and disapprove of equal involvement in decisions regardless of discrimination, including discrimination based on knowledge. While I understand your argument, this aspect is not well-founded. Instead, to adhere to the document and agree that we should pursue happiness, we should also allow others to voice their equal views on the matter and make a majority vote. In this case, the best course of action would be to educate those who should have an equal say in the vote rather than disregarding them, as that would be unconstitutional.

If you’re talking about prescription drugs for OCD. There’s normal SSRI’s that can help, Mirtazipine helped me for a while, Buspirone is very helpful. I’m not well versed in the huge selection of prescription drugs. Most of my research is on psychoactive substances people seek.

Ketamine has had decent success treating OCD in a clinical setting. I have OCD and I take Buspirone and that works very well for me. Only complaint is that it makes me dizzy as hell for about 30 minutes after I take it.

In terms of schizophrenia not really as of now besides stuff like lithium. That’s an illness we truly don’t understand well enough to treat yet.

Ketamine has also had some decent success with Bo-polar disorder. Which is interesting because we currently use lithium to treat that illness sometimes and lithium and ketamine have exactly opposite mechanisms, so we also don’t really understand that one either.

You brought three major illnesses that are not very well understood and outside of my expertise. But from what I’ve seen ketamine is having decent success with some of them. There is some evidence for drugs thag block the serotonin 2a receptors (5-ht2a receptors) can have some anti psychotic activity, but that still needs to be researched more.

Are there drugs used specifically for OCD or other anxiety-related disorders?

Or ones that neutralize the effects of schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, or Borderline Personality Disorder?

If you disagree with me, go ahead and invite me to a debate about the legalization of all drugs. I’ll be able to lay everything more clearly. I studied chemistry in school, I have studied pharmacology for roughly 4 years, have conducted studies of my own on cannabis, I know my stuff with this topic. I’m not trying to sound cocky or anything like that, but if yo I want to have this debate, come prepared lol

And by the way. I do argue for the “dangerous” drugs you mentioned.

Heroin, PCP, fentanyl, cocaine, Methamphetamine, all of that should b e legal to purchase over the counter from dispensaries to adults.

Thank you for the kind words mate.

“ Is increasing the likelihood of harm towards another not considered harming them, and should it be permissible?”

No it is not considered harming them in my opinion. Allowing people to own a lighter increases the likelihood of them burning someone or setting a house on fire, but that doesn’t mean simply because that possibility exists ownership of a lighter should be illegal. If someone’s owns an axe the likelihood of that ace being used for harm increases. Freedom is inherently dangerous. It’s important to have regulations on freedom. For example driving a car is dangerous but we require people to pass tests before they’re legally able to drive to make sure they pose the least threat to other people. Allowing people to move with their children to the plain states increases their likelihood of that decision to cause harm to them by the form of tornadoes hitting the house. That doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

There is ultimately not much evidence that drugs of any kind radically increase the likelihood of harm to others. Even if there was that alone wouldn’t be enough to make them illegal. What should be illegal is harming others, plain and simple, regardless of it was done with drugs in the system or not. Whether it was done with an axe or lighter doesn’t matter. If they harmed another person that is illegal. There are already laws protecting people from that type of behavior. The threat of danger is no excuse to make anything but harmful actions illegal.

This particular debate I’m having now isn’t using science and data to back up my claim that cannabis should be legal. It is more to make people realize that beating the drum of medical applicability is largely missing the point. We shouldn’t have to have an excuse to do dangerous things. We should be able to do what we please, as long as we aren’t harming people.

I’m pretty uninformed on recreational substance use, but Mps’s arguments are REALLY persuasive.

Particularly about lack of education and current laws contributing to more drug-related deaths.

Lol. Why did I get tagged?

I'm trying to get a better grasp of your argument's foundation and purpose.
In the last part of the debate description, you stated: "Because as soon as people point out it does have risks, and if it’s not as medically applicable as one though, their argument immediately gets weaker. It’s not about safety, it’s about freedom. That’s the argument I’m trying to make ultimately in this debate."

If I understand correctly, your argument is that individuals should have the freedom to act without concern for their safety, based on the fundamental human right to control oneself. You also argue that the pursuit of happiness, protected by the Declaration of Independence, implies that if a drug makes someone feel happy or pursuing the use of a drug makes someone feel happy, it should be protected under this right. Therefore, you suggest that any drug that makes someone feel happy, regardless of safety concerns, should be protected under the human right to make choices for oneself and the pursuit of happiness.

You mentioned that "I should be able to pursue happiness however I see fit as long as I’m not harming others or preventing others from doing so." Assuming we agree with this statement, what if an action does not definitively cause harm but increases the likelihood of harm to others? To clarify, if an action increases the likelihood of harm to others but is not the direct cause of harm, rather a contributing factor that creates a potential for harm, should it still be considered as not harming others and therefore permissible for someone to pursue their happiness? While I'm not stating there is scientific evidence that cannabis leads to increased violence or harm, it's important to acknowledge that there are many dangerous drugs, and someone could use this same logic to argue for the use of these substances.

Ultimately, what I'm asking is the following:
Is raising the likelihood of harm towards another considered harming them?
Is increasing the likelihood of harm towards another not considered harming them, and should it be permissible?
If so, is it permissible to set up others in a way that they are more likely to be harmed, even if it's not certain?
If not, is it permissible to do things that raise the likelihood of harm towards others in the pursuit of happiness?
Which drugs raise the likelihood of you unconsciously harming another during your journey to happiness, and should these actions be legal?
If not, why is it legal to intentionally drive a car aware that it raises the likelihood another may crash or be hit?
If yes, are people allowed to intentionally raise the probability of harm in a form of sabotage?
What makes driving a car legal when people are aware of the increased probability of harm to one another?
Is it because owning a car is considered a necessity in modern times that people choose to overlook the moral inconsistency of setting others up for a greater likelihood of harm while driving a car?
Is the difference between sabotage and driving a car that sabotage is someone going out of one's way to increase the likelihood of harm towards another and driving a car is not actively going out of one's way?
What if one's pursuit of happiness was in fact a form of sabotage as it was setting up another for a greater likelihood of harm, and the original pursuer was not attempting to harm others but only to pursue his goal, rather it was a side effect?

You can also see that in states where cannabis is illegal the use of less understood synthetic cannabinoids are much more prevalent. Synthetic cannabinoids are not inherently dangerous drugs or bad drugs, however people don’t know what they’re taking and some of them are much more potent than cannabis. If someone didn’t know what they were taking and accidentally consuming large quantities of any drugs they would face bad effects and have a bad time. That’s true of any drug, caffeine included. There are many reasons to legalize all drugs cannabis included, but pounding the drum of medical benefits is not that best way to do it. That’s what this whole debate really boils down to. Because there are also medical benefits to heroin, cocaine, Methamphetamine, etc. that isn’t something special cannabis has.

No it is not just based off of personal freedom although that is an aspect to it. It’s also based off the pursuit of happiness clause in the US constitution. I should be able to pursue happiness however I see fit as long as I’m not harming others or preventing others from doing so. Whether that is issuing heroin, exercising, using cannabis, etc. it’s also based off the fact that keeping drugs illegal makes them more dangerous because it’s a completely unregulated market. There’s no analysis done on the products no one knows the concentration of THC, or if it’s actually cannabis at all. It’s also based off the fact we have alcohol and tobacco that are legalized when they also have risks and harms associated with them but we allow adults to use this drugs and assume they are aware of the risks involved.

I also call for legalization because I have studied pharmacology for years at this point and it’s clear to see that 1: the general public knows nothing about drugs. 2: drugs are not near as dangerous as people pretend they are. The average person dying from drugs has 6 or more drugs in their system. This is due to contamination mostly, we know that is true because over 90% of powdered drugs seized from the streets have 4 or more substances in them. And 3: addiction is not as common or likely as people think it is even with drugs like heroin and cocaine and meth.

The ignorant and uneducated should not be the ones making legal decisions that can cause people to have their lives ruined by drug charges. It also shouldn’t be up to them to hinder scientific progress because scientists are reluctant to study drugs in schedule 1 because it takes years to get the permits to even have the drugs in the labs. So no it is not just personal freedom, although that is part of it. The more important parts are safety, negative impacts on society drug prohibition has, and hindering scientific progress as a basic overview.

Please let me know if I am mistaken, but it seems that your argument is based more on the principle of personal freedom rather than logic, reason, or scientific knowledge. While I understand your argument for personal freedom, we must also recognize that excessive personal freedom can lead to the breakdown of law and order, and ultimately, the government's role is to be the federal police, representing the people and protecting society. The government's responsibility is not only to protect society but also to protect itself in order to do so. Therefore, if the majority of people feel that a certain drug is unsafe for the rest of society, that is where its legality comes from.

You may argue that cannabis, for example, should not be illegal, and perhaps it shouldn't be. However, if efficiency hasn't voted in its majority and the government feels that it is unsafe for the rest of society, then we must accept that these are some of the negative side effects of living in a (relatively) well-governed and lawful society. We must also acknowledge that in the early American colonies, when people had more personal freedom, much slavery and murder went unpunished.

So, while I understand your frustration about something that seems like a personal right being illegal, we must recognize it as a negative side effect of the benefits we enjoy in our daily lives.

My whole arguments is based around how to make the argument for cannabis legalization stronger. Because beating the drums of medical benefits only gets so far. The real argument should be about personal freedom to take risks. By acknowledging the risks associated with cannabis use, and still saying we are free to do many risky things is what strengthens the argument.

I’m for all drugs being legalized, see my other debate that I’m having on that topic which also forced my opponent to forfeit every round. I think being honest about drug use, risks, and benefits are the only way to legalize them. Because eventually there will be cracks in the armor, maybe cannabis isn’t as healthy or beneficial as once believed, then all of the argument goes away when the enthusiasts are basing their entire argument off of that.

While it can be frustrating to witness others contradicting themselves in what appears to be obvious ways, it is crucial to engage in self-reflection to avoid committing similar mistakes by contradicting ourselves for the sake of convenience and being logical about things we don't care about. However, the current debate concerns whether "Cannabis is not risk-free and is not unique in terms of its medical applicability," and we should not allow our frustration with others' ignorance to dictate our emotional judgments or decisions about everything that caused us frustration.

By taking a logical approach to the question of whether cannabis should be legalized, we must first acknowledge that there is risk associated with consuming any consumable item, including fruits, vegetables, meats, and other foods. For example, consuming a fruit may pose a risk of bacterial infection, while factory-produced foods may be contaminated with chemicals. Additionally, trying new foods may pose a risk of allergies. However, we consume these items in our daily lives while acknowledging the risks, so to suggest that we should not legalize or consume cannabis due to its risk would not be a valid statement.

Moreover, we also take risks when driving cars every day, despite the high number of deaths caused by car accidents. Similarly, alcohol, which is a legal substance, is one of the leading causes of death. Therefore, we should not make something illegal or prohibited based solely on its risk. So, what should we base our judgments on? Generally, the judgments of what is legal and what is not take both risk and potential positive consequences into consideration.

For example, someone may be willing to take the risk of eating an orange because the probability of it being contaminated is low, and the benefits of consuming it outweigh the risks. We are willing to take on that risk and eat the orange anyways without considering making it illegal.

Now that we have acknowledged that whether something should be legal or not is not based on risk alone, we should use a three-dimensional analysis that considers all consequences, both positive and negative, present and future, and the probability of their occurrence. Only by including all these factors can we make a comprehensive decision on the legality of something.

Finally, the second part of the question, being "is cannabis special in terms of its medical applicability."

The term "special" can have different meanings depending on the context in which it is used. In the context of cannabis and its medical applicability, "special" could imply that cannabis possesses unique or exceptional therapeutic properties that are not found in other drugs or treatments. It could also suggest that cannabis is distinct from other substances in terms of its medical benefits, risks, or legal status. However, whether cannabis is considered "special" or not is subjective and depends on individual perspectives and criteria used for evaluation.

If we define "special" as being unique, then any different compound could be considered special in its own right, as it has its own unique properties. Therefore, asking whether cannabis is special may not be a useful question.

Instead, we should focus on whether the potential and definite positive consequences of using cannabis, both in the present and future, outweigh the potential and definite negative consequences, both in the present and future. This would involve a thorough assessment of the benefits and risks associated with the consumption of cannabis.

I am fine with speaking about subjective benefits. The problem I have with the cannabis enthusiasts and psychedelic enthusiasts is 1: they seem to never speak about the risks about the drug. 2: they tend to always talk down on other drugs. They always talk about cannabis in the form of it being a medicine, or that other drugs are bad and cannabis should get a pass where others don’t. That annoys me, cannabis and psychedelics enthusiasts often pretend to be experts on their drug of choice simply because they enjoy it even though they know nothing about the substance.

In the book "Brave New World," there is a distinction drawn between drug use and soma. In one scene, the doctor was speaking subjectively about the drug, saying that it was lengthening Linda's life subjectively. However, John was speaking objectively, explaining that the drug was shortening and poisoning her life. This highlights the importance of considering whether we are referencing benefits subjectively or objectively when deciding whether a drug is beneficial.

In evaluating the use of cannabis, it should be treated like any other drug. We need to analyze both its objective and subjective effects to determine its overall impact. If there are more negative objective effects, we should still consider the value of the subjective experience it provides.

What I am trying to convey is that the discussion about cannabis should not be limited to its overall benefits, but rather we should consider the subjectivity that comes with it. Even if it is slightly more negative in objective terms, it may still provide benefits when viewed through a subjective lens.

bump

bump

Agreed, people will be getting the best quality product and as an added bonus, it would massively reduce money that funds organised crime.

You’re correct education is important. I believe legalization is just as important to keep contamination minimal.

I think educating people and then let the decide for themselves is the way forward, it being legal or not won’t really affect the total amount of users but it it will stop people getting locked up for years over small possession charges and having their liver ruined.

I agree with basically everything you just said. I think the dispensaries should be privately owned, but have to meet regulatory standards. Standards like purity, serving sizes, and what you said about providing information on the drugs sold.

I also don’t necessarily think drug dealers shouldn’t be able to own these dispensaries if they’re able to show they’re capable of doing so. I know a lot of drug dealers, I’ve interviewed them for the book I’m writing. Most of them a pretty god damn intelligent and good, average, people. Obviously there are some that aren’t either of those things, but a good amount of them are decent, smart people. So I don’t think the government nor some millionaire should be able to come into their market and steal the customers they’ve locked down.

With that said I also don’t think the millionaires shouldn’t also have the ability to open dispensaries in any are. Let capitalism and competition drive the prices down so the drugs in dispensaries are priced well enough to make people willing to buy them instead of sticking with the street drugs.

I’m in the process of working with a literary agent to publish a book I’ve written on drugs, if you’re still on this website by the time I get it on the shelves I’ll send you a link to it lmao.

Sorry this is a long reply 😅

I 1000% agree, I think choosing medical benefit as their main and only point to run on is foolish, yes there are some cases where all other treatment has failed and medical cannabis has cured people but pretty much every long term study on cannabis shows major cognitive decline and increased chance of mental illness developing in people who smoke on a daily basis.
Personally I think there should be government rum dispensers where you can buy high quality products, receive information or get help for people that need it.
Growers would need a government license to be able to grow, they would be regulated to ensure product meet a certain quality and there would be a set minimum and maximum price per weight , all of which would be taxed giving the government a huge revenue boost. I would then pass laws that would massively punish non licensed dealers and anyone that was caught in possession of more than a personal recreational amount.
Doing this would destroy any existing drug supply networks , when customers could get better quality and safer drugs legally they would have no reason to use regular dealers and by implementing harsh drug sentences scarce off anyone stupid enough to try anything.
The drug trade will always be present in cities it’s stupid to think any government or police’s force could totally get rid of it! so why not take the power away from the drug dealers, it would cut off their sources of money, break up and jail gangs that harm out communities and prevent others more serious criminal activities that are funded by drug money. All while generating substantial revenue for government. The controlled and licensed products would be better quality and less harmful, it would provide jobs and traceability. It could also fund health care and counselling to those that need it. An added bonus would be the control and leverage that the government who the have over people dependent on thier supply, they would have the ability to manipulate people into voting their way by either cutting off the supply (coercion) or cutting costs of product(persuasion).

Yes I am very aware of Mr. Trott and his work. I’m more interested in the actual pharmacology over self reports but that book is very useful for a lot of things.

Im more into the work of Dr. Carl Hart and Hamilton Morris.

Sure so of the most prescribed drugs as very toxic and damaging to your body but are totally acceptable in society, the debate isn’t so much are the bad for you it’s more can peoples perception of drugs change and become more open minded. Have you come across the drug users bible before? It written by a guy who has sampled over 150 different drugs, he wrote the book as a guide for safe consumption of drugs to help reduce people needlessly dying https://books.google.ie/books/about/The_Drug_Users_Bible_Extended_Edition.html?id=JauJEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
You should check out some of his interviews he’s a very interesting guy!

Well we seem to agree on some stuff. I could argue about the toxicity and have a much deeper pharmacological debate than this if we needed. But it’s good we agree at least on how drugs should be handled

Don’t get me wrong I’m all for the decriminalisation of drugs. The stigma around certain drugs has been manufactured by people who had a agenda, the ‘war on drugs’ had nothing to do with drugs being bad it was that it didn’t fit the right narrative and it was used as an excuse to put non violent recreational users in jail for sentences that way exceeded their crimes.
There has been a lot of misinformation and scaremongering around certain drugs for example mdma, which has only recently shown in studies to have no negative affects on the brain and can actually be used to treat people with ptsd and couples in marriage counselling, another example would be ketamine, studies show that low dose ketamine in conjunction with counselling can rewire synapses in your brain healing past trauma and massively reducing episodes of depression.
What it really comes down to is what do you consider a drug to be… it’s a social construct, there a many many substances that can affect mood or alter perception but it’s only when we label them ‘drugs ‘and ‘bad’ that they become a negative.

It was just the browser.

I’ll see if I can figure it out in another browser.

For some reason this website just doesn’t work on my phone. It says I’m 25,000 characters over the limit before I type a word, so it’ll be early tomorrow morning before I post an argument because I’m working Night Shift.

If you’d like you should go look at my other debate I’m having about drugs.

Almost All drugs are relatively harmless if used responsibly. That’s why most drugs have a medical prescription. Methamphetamine is prescribed as Desoxyn. Morphine is heroin only difference sre two Acetyl Bonds.

I’m not arguing what risk should be accepted, I’m saying that risks exist and the cannabis crows pounding the drums of medical benefits should not be the point used to help legalize the drug.

So if we look at whether cannabis if risk free or not we first have to define what level of risk is considered acceptable. If you look at the risks of other legal and regularly consumes substances like alcohol or cigarettes there are substantial and well documented health risks associated with them but their consumption is considered socially acceptable and the risk agreeable. The issue with cannabis is it comes from a position of not being socially accepted and for many years has been vilified and punished by law. Thus the accepted level of risk will be much smaller.
For the most part cannabis is a harmless drug and when used moderately will have very little impact on your health.
Recently it has been found to help combat certain medical issues with great success. However studies have shown a substantial link between people who have underlying mental health issues and cannabis use resulting in psychosis, memory loss and cognitive impairment.
With the use to harm ratio so low it would be in the best interest of society if it’s use was decriminalised.

You’d be surprised how many cannabis enthusiasts think cannabis is healthy to consume.

Nothing is risk free?

Seriously, what food is risk free? What thing is risk free?

To who ever my opponent is: I am working Night Shift at my job , I will likely be replying late in the night.