Why are so many people fooled by big dope propaganda into thinking that cannabis is safe, harmless drug?

You're right, we do know the effects:
>Leads to serious, sometimes irreversible mental illness
>Leads to respiratory and heart problems
>Leads to violent crime
so i'm not just gonna "chill dude" when there's a huge, million dollar funded campaign across the world to get it legalized.

>Yeah, this dangerous mind-atlering drug that leads to numerous medical problems is just fine if you take it "responsibly".
Yes, it is just fine.

Marijuana is literally safe as fuck.

I have no doubt that OP's study correlated marijuana use with poor people, and poor areas, that are associated with crime...and then drew a conclusion from that.

Post the link so that I can see the study's methods do not follow correct research methods and have a weak correlation.

>t. college graduate

Attached: 1532895228981.jpg (248x247, 23K)

>60 years ago they had ads running saying it would make you mad and kill you.
and look how right they turned out to be.

>Marijuana is literally safe as fuck.
Why do so many mass killers use it then?

Take a seat boomer cunt

Attached: image.jpg (912x768, 241K)

>all these unsited opinions
I don't expect you to have a master's degree in a research field, but I do expect the bare minimum from you: post some fucking sources retard

Here's the dail mail article:
dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4950206/Smoking-cannabis-DOES-make-people-violent.html
It doesn't link the study, but it does give plenty of examples that disprove that "Marijuana is literally safe as fuck."

It's as safe as most other legal psychotropic drugs and its criminalization costs more than it's worth. I'd go as far as wager that reading DailyMail is more toxic than smoking cannabis, but I wouldn't advocate for either to be banned.

Unless you want to ban humanity's best friend, alcohol, then banning substances like cannabis is retarded

Attached: 606.jpg (1279x960, 140K)

Lee Rigby killers, Nice killer, Charlie Hebdo Killers, Tunis beach killer, Barcelona killers, Bataclan and Brussels airport killers, Thalys train shooter, Leytonstone knife attacker, all public knowledge that they were cannabis users.

>cannabis makes people violent
more like violent people are more likely to smoke weed

a canadian that isn't a dope smoking hop head?

they exist?

>criminalization costs more than it's worth.
Is it not worth the cost to protect society from dangerous drugs and their users?

going to be honest, I'd fire anyone that used marijuana, there are always more applicants

>all were schizos
Woooow

Attached: 1519361020763.png (817x443, 34K)

Not if drug consumption generates less costs than its criminalization.

False equivalency, alcohol has been in mass use for millennia and is already legal, not even Iran was successful at banning it. Cannabis on the other hand is still illegal, all that needs to happen is to have proper enforcement of drug laws to reduce it's usage.

It doesn't. Also it isn't the government's place to say what you can and cannot do to yourself.

What do you think caused them to become schizos, genius?

>>False equivalency
It's not a false equivalence.

Why would you make it illegal in the first place?
If it is about health cost then a tax on the buyers is the solution.

How is it not?

It sounds like they were all Muslim.

It also sounds like I am talking to an underage leaf.

List kid, whatever you do in life, make sure you get a college education, and make sure you do well in your statistics class.

I'm not gonna argue with someone who has no idea what they are talking about, but thinks up ideas that sound really good to xir and so decides to treat them as facts.

Attached: 1531278838252.png (800x800, 84K)

but it doesn't cause people to commit crimes directly, unlike alcol and cocaine

I have spent hundreds of hours around drunks in bars, many, many, fights

I have spent hundreds of hour in coffeeshops in Amsterdam and with people getting high, ZERO fights.

Isn't the daily mail known for absolute shit articles?

nobody ever died because of marihuana, on the other hand millons die daily thanks to alcohol, tobacco and other legal drougs

Alcohol is allowed because of cultural reasons, claiming that it's special because of said cultural reasons is a fallacy.

Not saying you're necessarily wrong but when a study comes out and you post tertiary popsci coverage of that study from the fucking dailymail, it makes me assume you're a retard who never actually read the paper

D U D E
W
E
E
D L M A O

So you're just going to ignore all the evidence and chalk it down to "dey wer all muzlims"?
very typical for an American desu

alcohol should be banned

Yes, because enforcement during the 1970s was incredibly successful, you retarded boomer

Attached: 15104086082731.png (645x729, 70K)

>claiming that it's special because of said cultural reasons is a fallacy
When did i say it was?
completely false, thousands have died because of driving while high on cannabis, and those numbers are only increasing.
dailyhive.com/vancouver/marijuana-alcohol-traffic-deaths-report-2017

>poor people, and poor areas, that are associated with crime.
*black people, and *black areas

A shit ton of people do that, they say it is a medicine etc etc

>Nobody says it's harmless
They do though

>When did i say it was?
Right here:
>>False equivalency, alcohol has been in mass use for millennia and is already legal

>there's literally no argument for criminalising cannabis that also doesn't warrant criminalising alcohol beyond "uhhh too hard to do that :("
Basically saying that cannabis should be illegal because it's currently illegal and that alcohol should be legal because it's currently legal. Real powerful paradigm-shifting argument right there.

Attached: 1520174046731.jpg (4592x3056, 2.5M)

>xir
faget

>Smoking cannabis DOES make people more violent
Nigger what?
>Daily Mail
Oh, I see. Carry on, Jow Forumsfriend.

>Basically saying that cannabis should be illegal because it's currently illegal and that alcohol should be legal because it's currently legal.
But that's true. There is a status quo, and status quo should be changed only if there are very good reasons to do so.

Because of the DUI occurrences, the government also needs to ban sleeping pills, benzodiazepines, antihistamines, SNRIs, beta blockers, anticonvulsants, alcohol, and sleep deprived people

By the same token, the status quo should also only be protected for good reason.

I didn't say that alcohol was special because of any cultural reasons, all I said was that alcohol and cannabis aren't comparable in this sense because of the history of use for both drugs, and the fact that alcohol is already legal. Please do try and actually read what I say.

My bad, that was for

>confirmation bias: the study: the article: the thread

Attached: yes.png (483x701, 311K)

That is not was evidence even means you literal retard

You don't have to say that it's legal because of cultural reasons, because that's common knowledge.

It's still not false equivalence. He was comparing one substance to another.

I have never seen a fight, I have seen pot smoking losers though

>It's still not false equivalence. He was comparing one substance to another.
Yes it is, alcohol and cannabis both have a very different history of use and legal status, therefore they can't be compared in this sense. This isn't hard to understand.

No, status quo should be protected by default, and if someone will find arguments convincing enough, it should be changed.

Yes, and like I said, cultural reasons don't make it a false equivalence.

>No, status quo should be protected by default
Why?

>I have spent hundreds of hour in coffeeshops in Amsterdam and with people getting high, ZERO fights.
What's your point? Just because you personally haven't seen a violent cannabis user, doesn't mean there aren't any.

I've never once mentioned these "cultural reasons" you keep talking about.

Similarly, just because you have seen a cannabis user fight doen's mean cannabis increases the chance of violent behaviour.

You have done so twice now, the second time right here: >Yes it is, alcohol and cannabis both have a very different history of use and legal status

We all know drunks fight, stoners chill.

Correct, but if there are studies that prove that cannabis causes violent behavior then I think we can take that seriously.

Neither of those posts do I mention "cultural reasons". pPease actually read what i'm saying

A daily mail article is not a study though.

Never said it was, the article reports on a study.

It doesn't matter if you say it outright. What you are describing are cultural reasons, and they do not place alcohol as a substance beyond scrutiny or comparison to different drugs.

This says a lot about our society pal

Link the study then.

I'm between supporting Saudi Arabia over Canada or this I really can't decide which hill it would be funnier to watch conservatives die on in Canada.

Because status quo is a thing which already somehow works and worked for quite an amount of time. Meanwhile I can invent a thousand of crazy changes to status quo, which will either lead to immediate problems, or maybe will lead to problems after some time. So if you propose some change, you should argue why it will be beneficial, not harming.

By the same logic if someone makes a claim in discussion, he must give arguments for it. Only then his adversaries should make arguments against it.

>It doesn't matter if you say it outright.
It does actually, falsely claiming I said something which I didn't matters. Apparently not to you though.

Then what is history of use if not a cultural reason?

Confirmation bias. You won't see nerds or religious people smoking weed so no shit cannabis users commit more crimes than the national population.

History of use is just that, history of use.

Why is there a history of use?

>Because status quo is a thing which already somehow works and worked for quite an amount of time
But that is wrong. What works changes from year to year, decade to decade; constantly shifting. Culture, education, language, science and technology are inherently evolutionary in nature and trying to arbitrarily maintain them is a pointless endeavor at best.

>So if you propose some change, you should argue why it will be beneficial, not harming.
Progression is not binary.

>By the same logic if someone makes a claim in discussion, he must give arguments for it.
Yet your entire argument for upholding the status quo boils down to 'what's good is good and that's understood so don't even question if you know what I mean', to quote Jack Johnson.

>You won't see nerds or religious people smoking weed
Are you really this sheltered or what?

I'm a grower and I go to growers events around the country.
Most growers are nerds, the hippie days are gone.

weed doesn't cause it, but it can be harmful to schizos or people predisposed to it

this is nothing new

if a pot user is violent you can subdue him by giving hiving a pack of twinkies and putting a jimi hendrix record to play,how hard is that?

>But that is wrong. What works changes from year to year, decade to decade; constantly shifting.
Yes, but it is shifting by implementing certain changes. If those changes are good, then global progress is good, if they are not, then there are failures to happen, and if changes will be implemented without checking them, everything will end in a catastrophe. It's like driving on a road near a cliffs - if you won't move, you will just stay in one place, which is not good, but if you will move randomly, you will just fall down.
>Progression is not binary.
It is binary in many important cases: implement a certain change, or not?
>what's good is good and that's understood
More like "what is now, is at least not horrendous". Meanwhile what will come may easily be horrendous if no checked. Basically a Chesterton fence argument.

Well, regardless of the false false equivalency earlier, consider these points (in case you're actually interested in debating the subject and not simply trolling):

>1) Correlation does not equal causation.
There is a correlation between drownings and ice cream consumed. Does ice cream cause people to drown?
>2) Report bias.
If smoking pot is illegal, people are hesitant to disclose that they use it, in which case it only comes up in circumstances where the person has done something wrong.
>3) Even if a causative relationship between pot and violence could be established, it is still not a sufficient reason to keep it illegal.
It is not a convincing argument that free access automatically equals higher consumption. If production and consumption is illegal, we can observe a lesser taboo on the substance, which has a tendency to lessen its attractiveness. This has been observed with use of pot in countries such as Netherlands, as well as conversely with Alcohol during times of prohibition. Furthermore, if production is legal, there is less incentive for criminal organisations to push the substance in the street, as they stand to profit less from it. This would also as a side effect reduce criminal organisations' influence by stifling their income, as well as bring more funds to the government to use as they please (for better or worse)
>4) It is not the government's place to dictate what people can do to themselves, or others consensually
This is a very simple point, and it's slightly dependent on personal values and opinions, but I think it's still a very important point to consider. It's an alarming course if only concrete facts are taken into account, as liberty is its own reward. Let's take boats as an example; unless you're a fisherman, you really don't NEED one, and people drown because of them all the time. But should they still not have the right to go boating if they so desire? Do people really NEED coffee or tobacco? Or sugar?

T. Teetotaler

>drug consumption generates less money than enforcing illegal status spendings
This could not be true in any scenario