You haven't been pointing to the experts. You've been pointing to people who are pointing to the experts.
You accuse me of cherry picking, and yet you glossed over the abstract.
The study, by experts, is looking at the evidence to find the consensus. They conclude there are considerable risks, like all the other experts do. As I said, any time I point to the experts views on the studies you go "NUH UH THEY AREN'T EXPERTS!" so this is entirely pointless. You think you know better than the scientists, you are making a faith based argument it is impossible to debate.
I'm not saying that kids should smoke and then go to school. I'm not saying that expecting mothers should smoke a blunt all day every day. I've never said pot has zero negative effects. I'm saying prohibition is stupid. Especially prohibition of something that is requiring a lot of studies to find negative effects that have yet to be conclusive and likely only apply to a small minority of the population.
The scientists disagree with you, and state there are considerable risks to using this drug. Your opinion is not a substitute for scientific fact.
I'd be willing to bet there are far more people with deadly food allergies than people that will violently assault someone when under the effects of marijuana or "marijuana withdrawal."
Food is necessary to sustain life. People who are allergic to a food product simply avoid it, as milk and eggs are not addictive drugs like Marijuana. This is what separates the two products. As for your "bet", I think we should stick with what the scientists say, that there are considerable risks to using the drug, instead of your opinions.
It's pretty clear that tobacco causes lung cancer and alcohol destroys livers, but the studies about pot mostly all say that more investigation is required. It also seems like more of the studies are testing single chemicals on rats rather than looking at the affects of the whole drug on people.
And yet the experts say there are considerable risks.
Only one of the sourced abstracts mentions anything about aggressive behavior (which is what got us on this tangent in the first place). It is titled "preliminary findings suggest a mechanism for cannabis-induced violence" and is a preliminary study with only five subjects and no control group.
Pretty much any look at all the studies leads to the conclusion that pot can cause paranoia and panic attacks, which can easily make someone make aggressive bad decisions about someone who has no ill intent towards them.
Here in England the police don't even need to carry guns and they still manage to do their jobs.
Did you dry your piss and smoke it? WTF...
It's common knowledge dude, even outside England.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances. This originates from the formation of the Metropolitan Police Service in the 19th century, when police were not armed, partly to counter public fears and objections concerning armed enforcers as this had been previously seen due to the British Army maintaining order when needed. The arming of police in the United Kingdom is a perennial topic of debate.
Most officers are instead issued with other items for personal defence, such as Speedcuffs, Extendable "ASP" Baton, and incapacitant sprays such as PAVA or CS spray. While not a firearm, CS spray is subject to some of the same rules and regulations as a projectile firing firearm under Section 5 (b) of the Firearms Act 1968.
Here in parts of America everyone carries a gun. I would be very unwise for a cop to do their job unarmed.
Right, which is why we need to get rid of those guns first. I'm okay with waiting on that to stop having the cops carry them.
Exactly my point thanks. Putting 3 million people in jail as political prisoners (thats what you call it when there is no victim) makes things worse as you say, and costs a lot.
Exactly, it's better to put users in mandatory inpatient treatment programs. You can save some money over imprisonment and have a better chance of not having to arrest them again. The distributors though, should definitely be in jail. They are knowingly harming the addicts for profit and it can't be tolerated. Even places like the Netherlands don't tolerate the trafficking.
You said at one point you like to help your fellow man. And yet you are also saying we should arrest people for consensual adult behavior, in which no victim has come forth to complain, and punish them harshly.
I don't believe helping someone to solve their drug problem is punishing them, addiction is not a consensual behavior. It's a compulsion brought on by a poison, and it harms the children and other family members of the addicts as well as the addicts themselves.
Do you see two satisfied people who have done business together with no complaints and this reminds you of child porn or murder? I hope not.
I see one person who has exploited another person by selling them an addictive product that will compel them to by more even if they want to stop. Addicts routinely end up selling their bodies to get more drugs, the connection between sexual exploitation and drug abuse is real and scary.http://baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2012/5/25/pinellas_sheriff_tee.html
The Pinellas County Sheriff released a lot more information about a Palm Harbor man accused of procuring teenage runaway prostitutes and giving them meth.
“These 16-year-olds engaged in these prostitution activities at least 10 times,” said Sheriff Bob Gualtieri.
You seem to have the need to point out that drugs are dangerous. That is -my- point. Of course they are. Too dangerous to leave in the hands of criminals. Prohibition makes them still more dangerous and eliminates our ability to regulate, put age limits, quality limits, volume limits, etc.
Legalization has still left us with 75,000 deaths a year from Alcohol
and 443,000 yearly from cigarettes
so I'm not exactly impressed with your claims that legalization is going to solve anything.
Selling to the underage is rampant:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_consumption_by_youth_in_the_United_States
Young females attempted to buy beer without an ID at liquor, grocery or convenience stores:
In 47–52% of the attempts, beer was sold. (1, 2)
Nearly 80% of all the stores sold beer to the buyers at least once in three attempts; nearly 25% sold beer all three times.(1)
When young females attempted to buy beer without an ID at bars or restaurants, 50% of the attempts resulted in a sale to the buyer.(2)
When young males and females attempted to buy beer without an ID at community festivals, 50% of the attempts resulted in a sale to the buyer.(3)
Underage drinking is a major public health problem.
Rarity, I thought you said you were in Florida? I guess that must have been someone else.
I said I'm originally from Clearwater, my work took me to England.
I just can't stand when someone presents a truck load of evidence and then don't actually read it and a bunch of it ends up supporting the other sides argument.
Pure denialism, the scientists who have looked at the bulk of the evidence have identified considerable risk. Cherry picking out lines from studies does not change that.