Learn before you judge.

[Hraesvelg]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/145534.htm

It's a good read, but the germane bits to this particular topic are:

"Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression."

and

"Marijuana and opiates temporarily inhibit violent behavior, but withdrawal from opiate addiction tends to exaggerate both aggressive and defensive responses to provocations."

I'd suggest reading the entire article, but I know some people won't, hence the quoting.

A person using weed would in fact be less aggressive than in a normal, unaltered state.

Edit: Is the question now how many people have died from smoking weed? That answer is exactly zero. Period. In all of recorded history.

[iDerrick]

I didn't see that it got moved. Sorry.

Hrae was trying to say that the chance of getting killed by weed is MORE than 1 in 11 million.

I did a quick google but I cant find anything yet. Anyone wanna enlight me with some ratios?

Heres a interesting find:


ANNUAL AMERICAN DEATHS CAUSED BY DRUGS

TOBACCO ........................ 400,000
ALCOHOL ........................ 100,000
ALL LEGAL DRUGS ................ 20,000
ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS .............. 15,000
CAFFEINE ....................... 2,000
ASPIRIN ........................ 500
MARIJUANA ...................... 0
----------------------------------------
Source: United States government...
National Institute on Drug Abuse,
Bureau of Mortality Statistics


http://www.legalizationofmarijuana.com/

Now I dont know about the 0 deaths, it just sounds too good to be true, but Im sure its close to none compared to the rest of the other drugs.

[A_Forever]

Heres a interesting find:


ANNUAL AMERICAN DEATHS CAUSED BY DRUGS

TOBACCO ........................ 400,000
ALCOHOL ........................ 100,000
ALL LEGAL DRUGS ................ 20,000
ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS .............. 15,000
CAFFEINE ....................... 2,000
ASPIRIN ........................ 500
MARIJUANA ...................... 0
----------------------------------------
Source: United States government...
National Institute on Drug Abuse,
Bureau of Mortality Statistics


http://www.legalizationofmarijuana.com/

I thought Marijuana was counted as an illegal drug D:!

/confused

[Hraesvelg]

Right, it would be counted amongst them, but it would also include the other types of illegal drugs. It contributed 0 to the overall number.

[Manzcar]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/145534.htm

It's a good read, but the germane bits to this particular topic are:

"Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression."

and

"Marijuana and opiates temporarily inhibit violent behavior, but withdrawal from opiate addiction tends to exaggerate both aggressive and defensive responses to provocations."

I'd suggest reading the entire article, but I know some people won't, hence the quoting.

A person using weed would in fact be less aggressive than in a normal, unaltered state.

Edit: Is the question now how many people have died from smoking weed? That answer is exactly zero. Period. In all of recorded history.

That would be incorrect two of my friends got high and drove their car off a bridge at the age of 17. Death because of POT. Use if you want to but don't tell me it doesn't kill anyone cause I have two friends in a grave because of POT. Ohhh yeah their death was labeled a car accident but they'd be alive if they weren't high.

[Phantom Badger]

I havn't yet watched the video, but I'm completely against almost all Drugs.
Tobacco, Marijuana, Cocaine, etc.
The only time Marojuana is acceptable is for medical uses i think.
Just a warning to you people, you may see this is being stubborn but I will not change my opinion.

[Spirit]

Whether it is legal or not, some people will still not change their views on it. Alcohol is legal and there are a LOT of people who still do not drink it and think that drinking is bad. Cigarettes are legal and there are a LOT of people who do not smoke, hates smoking, and hates being around people who smoke.

The truth of the matter is it does influence your behavior, it does mess with your reaction, it does slow your thought process down, it does change you. Even if it is only temporary.

When you are arrested for it while driving, guess what, they call it a D.U.I. Driving while Under the Influence ( or whatever your state deems it, some it is D.W.I, others it may be something different). They do not label it as driving while high on pot. Also, when they wreck the accident is labeled as “due to driving while under the influence”.

•"Weed" killed my sister in 1991. She had a bad reaction and her heart stopped....she was only 17.

Tell this girl that pot did not kill her sister.

It is known that marijuana smoke is much worse for the respiratory system than is cigarette smoke. The only reason you don't hear about a lot of people dying from marijuana is that -- well, for one, a pot-smoker who dies of emphysema goes down as a "smoking-related" death.

You cannot say that pot does not kill people. It does. Argue this case with me when they start labelling the deaths correctly. Keep your inaccurate statistics, they do not make for a good argument.

And I am not even going to get into all the drug-related killings that go on everyday on our city streets.

As far as the title of this thread goes - You are judging those that do not like it. Yet, you do not want to be judged. Hmm…..

Come back and tell people not to judge you when you do not judge the people that want to keep it illegal or the people who find smoking pot to be disgusting.

[Hraesvelg]

Whether it is legal or not, some people will still not change their views on it. Alcohol is legal and there are a LOT of people who still do not drink it and think that drinking is bad. Cigarettes are legal and there are a LOT of people who do not smoke, hates smoking, and hates being around people who smoke.

That's perfectly fine. No one is arguing the point that smoking weed should be mandatory. It shouldn't be illegal for those who choose to do so, however.

The truth of the matter is it does influence your behavior, it does mess with your reaction, it does slow your thought process down, it does change you. Even if it is only temporary.

So does alcohol and sex, and neither of those should be illegal either. This is a moot point.

When you are arrested for it while driving, guess what, they call it a D.U.I. Driving while Under the Influence ( or whatever your state deems it, some it is D.W.I, others it may be something different). They do not label it as driving while high on pot. Also, when they wreck the accident is labeled as “due to driving while under the influence”.

And it would still apply. Driving while impaired with either drink or weed would have the same penalties. Weed smoking should be a personal choice that comes with personal consequences. I don't think anyone here has made the argument that weed smokers should be able to drive without penalty.

Tell this girl that pot did not kill her sister.

Mind if I see the medical examiner's report?

It is known that marijuana smoke is much worse for the respiratory system than is cigarette smoke. The only reason you don't hear about a lot of people dying from marijuana is that -- well, for one, a pot-smoker who dies of emphysema goes down as a "smoking-related" death.

Care to site sources? I'd love to see your data about links to respiratory problems and marijuana smoke compared to that of regular smoking which is LEGAL. I don't need the government legislating my morality. If I want to partake of a harmful substance, so be it. Conversely, if I then need treatment due to using the substance, I don't think the government should pay for it, either.

You cannot say that pot does not kill people. It does. Argue this case with me when they start labelling the deaths correctly. Keep your inaccurate statistics, they do not make for a good argument.

Nor do anecdotal accounts or appeals to emotion (like your unsourced quote and Manz's account).

And I am not even going to get into all the drug-related killings that go on everyday on our city streets.

Good, because that is a result of the black market that has arisen to meet the demand. If the prohibition would be lifted, a large amount of that would be reduced.

Edit:

I havn't yet watched the video, but I'm completely against almost all Drugs.
Tobacco, Marijuana, Cocaine, etc.
The only time Marojuana is acceptable is for medical uses i think.
Just a warning to you people, you may see this is being stubborn but I will not change my opinion.

Do you drink coffee? Tea? Anything caffeinated? If you do, you're being hypocritical.

[Spirit]

That's perfectly fine. No one is arguing the point that smoking weed should be mandatory. It shouldn't be illegal for those who choose to do so, however.

Reread post #8. My response was to the OP's comment about VIEWS.

So does alcohol and sex, and neither of those should be illegal either. This is a moot point.

So why make it legal? Why are the others legal? Why add one more into the mix?

And it would still apply. Driving while impaired with either drink or weed would have the same penalties. Weed smoking should be a personal choice that comes with personal consequences. I don't think anyone here has made the argument that weed smokers should be able to drive without penalty.

don't think I mentioned penalties, this along with the rest that you broke up into pieces was all in relation to statisctics. Do not throw inaccurate statistics out there and say that pot does not kill.

Mind if I see the medical examiner's report?

Ask the dead girl's sister for it.

Care to site sources? I'd love to see your data about links to respiratory problems and marijuana smoke compared to that of regular smoking which is LEGAL. I don't need the government legislating my morality. If I want to partake of a harmful substance, so be it. Conversely, if I then need treatment due to using the substance, I don't think the government should pay for it, either.

More of breaking up my comments on the misconstrued statistics. The point is not whether it causes more damage or not. The point is it goes down as a "smoking-related" death, not as death by pot. But, lets completely avoid that and if we break it up, it is all about legalizing it or not, not about bad statistics.

Nor do anecdotal accounts or appeals to emotion (like your unsourced quote and Manz's account).

See the above on breaking up my posts, tired of typing the same thing over and over. If it is not clear by now, it never will be.

Good, because that is a result of the black market that has arisen to meet the demand. If the prohibition would be lifted, a large amount of that would be reduced.

NOT about legalizing it or not. About Pot-related deaths. But, lets avoid that, because it throws the argument out of the direction you want.

Besides, in relation to that, we should take on the mentality, "oh we should legalize it, instead of trying to fight it, so the idiots will quit killing themselves." Ummm... no. You do not give in, you fight the war. THat would be like saying, oh lets just give in to terrorists threats, because then less people will be killed.

And seriously, you think the killing would go down? Then why do liquor stores still get robbed? Liquor is legal. Oh wait!!!!!! I know, because it costs money, and idiots don't want to pay for it. The simple fact is, people will still rob and kill for it, because they cannot afford it.

[Hraesvelg]

So your answer to my "inaccurate" statistics is to...not have any statistics at all? No citing of studies that back up your claims? No attempt at empirical evidence? Just waving it all away with a magic "This is the way it is because I say so!"?