frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Decriminalize marijuana in the United States?

Debate Information

This doesn't mean make it legal in all States, but it does stop police officers from arresting anybody caught with small amounts.
  1. Live Poll

    Decriminalize marijuana in the United States

    5 votes
    1. Yes.
      80.00%
    2. No.
      20.00%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • WinstonCWinstonC 209 Pts   -  
    Yes, though it would be better to make it fully legal and regulated so that criminals cannot use drug-money to finance their other operations. I don't believe that criminal gangs could get as big and powerful if we cut off their main revenue supply: drug-money.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    "but it does stop police officers from arresting anybody caught with small amounts."

    But the police officers are doing their jobs, to protect, and serve the public?

    While the marijuana user's, have been self serving to their own marijuana use, illegally for how many years, and generations now?

    Why legalize marijuana? 

    To make money off of the marijuana addicts drug use?

    Wouldn't the legalization of Marijuana, in a sense quate to legalized fruad?

    Is the legalization of marijuana fair and equal to the toddlers, kids, and family members who have been putting up with their family members marijuana addiction problems?

    Is it fair and equal to an unborn baby, to have its mother, smoking marijuana, while the baby, is inside the womb?

    Why pander, cater, coddle, and reward the marijuana addict, by legalizing their illegal drug of choice? 

    The legalization of marijuana is pro marijuana user only, and is anti family at the same time.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • agsragsr 881 Pts   -  
    Major benefit will be to reduce smuggling, since it will be legal
    Live Long and Prosper
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @agsr

    The vast majority of marijuana in the US is grown in the US, so not a lot of smuggling of marijuana goes on. And smuggling takes place in large amounts and usually anything over an ounce is considered "intent to distribute", so it would technically still be illegal. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen

    @piloteer

    No comment?


    "but it does stop police officers from arresting anybody caught with small amounts."

    But the police officers are doing their jobs, to protect, and serve the public?

    While the marijuana user's, have been self serving to their own marijuana use, illegally for how many years, and generations now?

    Why legalize marijuana? 

    To make money off of the marijuana addicts drug use?

    Wouldn't the legalization of Marijuana, in a sense quate to legalized fruad?

    Is the legalization of marijuana fair and equal to the toddlers, kids, and family members who have been putting up with their family members marijuana addiction problems?

    Is it fair and equal to an unborn baby, to have its mother, smoking marijuana, while the baby, is inside the womb?

    Why pander, cater, coddle, and reward the marijuana addict, by legalizing their illegal drug of choice? 

    The legalization of marijuana is pro marijuana user only, and is anti family at the same tim 

    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @Plaffelvohfen

    @piloteer

    How does the decriminalization of marijuana benefit, an unborn baby, who's mother is using marijuana, while pregnant?

    Being that it's not legal for the mother to smoke marijuana, while pregnant is it?

    How does decriminalization, benefit the families of the marijuana addicts drug use?

    Being, that it's not legal for the marijuana addict, to smoke marijuana in the same house, that they share with the marijuana addict, is it? 

    How does a marijuana addict getting high in their vehicle, benefit safety, of the sober drivers, while the marijuana addict, illegally drives while stoned on weed?

    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteer said:
    This doesn't mean make it legal in all States, but it does stop police officers from arresting anybody caught with small amounts.

    I have not found a common defense to be shared on the grounds of legality set on substance abuse alone. The basic principle is that marijuana should be regulated as a form of air pollution, this is the largest united state of concern made with the public by witnesses and complaint. It is the burning of marijuana which releases THC into the air without no control over who will be influenced by THC.

    Marijuana was never criminal, the legislation originally in pace was Ex Post Facto to control air pollution. At which point at some time it was abused even more to take control over ownership of property. Marijuana set as a narcotic has done greater injustice as it protected croups of people who could then taint marijuana with chemicals used as a pollutant by people who had no authorized to do so.


  • But the police officers are doing their jobs, to protect, and serve the public?

    The police officers job is to protect and serve united state constitution, it is the publics job to protect and serve the united state constitution, when either is proven not to be sharing in this burden to do so, it is described as a declaration of independence which is then recognized and should be addressed to locate the source of misdirection. In public or in officer of law, officers of law are not lawyers they are not licensed to create the idea of justice.
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @John_C_87

    You're reiterating your same previous arguments.
  • piloteer said:
    @agsr

    The vast majority of marijuana in the US is grown in the US, so not a lot of smuggling of marijuana goes on. And smuggling takes place in large amounts and usually anything over an ounce is considered "intent to distribute", so it would technically still be illegal. 

    The argument is still marijuana is not illegal, pollution is created by use of marijuana is the challenge made against legal precedent, making it illegal to sell something that becomes an illegal substance by its unregulated mispurpose, blame the sale, these are points that are not sticking to the evidence collected by official institution by obtained warrant, it is dependent on a lie held by a limited interpretation not united state. Marijuana is a manufactured narcotic? No, it is clearly not, absolutely not, to say so on any official document is a lie. Marijuana is no more illegal then owing a tank of gasoline, tires on a car, acetone, cold medicine, 1,000 lbs. of dry corn, and 200 lbs. of grapes.

    Marijuana is proven as illegal to address an issue of pollution which can take place by the release privately of THC. The reasons of why quantity in marijuana is taken as a weight no longer serves a secure common defense to the general welfare in a Global Drug War. This is a Chemical War. Marijuana and tobacco are place in this war by the addition of chemical additives place inside so others can be effected, harmed, and even killed.


  • piloteer said:
    This doesn't mean make it legal in all States, but it does stop police officers from arresting anybody caught with small amounts.

    As united state the state of the union is made on civil judicial limitations on independent matters of civil liberty. Marijuana was never illegal, that simple a pardon can be made on a governor or governess level, by documented case by case revue. The law enforcement idea of protect and serve requires clear constitutional direction in legislation, what is to be look at as safety matter, what is to be held against the general welfare of the people as united state. Really what we are testing in who truth is giving police a liberty to take any set size of marijuana needed for testing as a united state. In every state by a national data base. A TICKET for a form of pollution as a general state of welfare is to defined in advance for who can be contacted on the marijuana's state having been tampered, not tampered. The police officer seeing or observing recklessness or other questionable behavior is the common defense to the general welfare and overall tranquility which is to be regulated by cost in Federal Reserve Note.....
  • Why legalize marijuana? 

    As an American doen't you mean why prove marijuana illgal?
    There is a spooky presumtion of guilt in your tone, it's the very same tone used to disarm any legal common defense for tranquility which isures American liberty. 

    Not sure if that has been noticed by any-one else yet...........
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    I think I pointed this out to you before, but I will remind you that marijuana is now used in vaporizers, so they give off no carcinogens from the burning. It's just steam. I suppose the steam vapor could potentially expose others to THC, but that's only a concern in public areas. This debate is also not about legalizing marijuana, it's about decriminalizing it, so causing others to be exposed to THC by careless marijuana users would probably be illegal, and technically, even if marijuana is totally legalized, I don't think exposing others to it would or should be legal. As far as any pollutants from the vapors, I'm not sure there's any reliable evidence that THC is considered a pollutant, but if you come up with something, feel free to show us. Thanx for sharing :)
  • The pollution of marijuana is made by exposing others people against their consent to a level of foreign substance placed in Air. there is a lot more at stake here as far as legislation goes along the line of substance abuse. One an understanding of Ex post facto law was stating marijuana as never in basic principle illegal by evidence collected by judicial process, while by law many criminal threats still remain in place by human abuse of marijuana as a substance to justify any open pardon to decriminalized. The effort of a forgiveness must still address basic principle and legal precedent to move forward into a united state as constitutional. This may present a risk to revealing many things including marijuana was never illegal by fact and whole truth, the criminal accusation was only itself a common defense for a general welfare for protection against something else always the greater evil in this matter. The argument is still about preservation of constitution as the best form of common defense to the general public while then looking for a means to bring law into focus of constitution united state. There is no other way to say this marijuana was always legal and you simple had  no idea of this whole truth. The idea not to contest this in the legal process is justice is a privilege in fabrication of licensed lawyer, it is preservation of united state and its bond with American Constitution as state of the union which is delegated to all people, by the right to file grievance by use as common defense to the general welfare of liberty and justice as a united state. 

    I think I pointed this out to you before,  yes and so nicely, thank you. but I will remind you that marijuana is now used in vaporizers, so they give off no carcinogens from the burning. It's just steam. I suppose the steam vapor could potentially expose others to THC.  Oh! you are willing to presume a potential of such thing as contaminated steam a threat,( dramatic written exaggeration as we know of many more serious threats in a line of legal precedent including narcotics) while presuming all those who can afford marijuana have the liquidity of cash to vape as well by united state, they don't. Lets skip the B.S. please we know a threat is there and that threat in itself in minimal. In truth that threat increase greatly when chemical substances are place unknowingly as addition to marijuana. So we are both clear on the grounds of authority as to how people, and for what purpose people do something like this might be used, lets for the moment just say kicks, amusement of watching people under the influence of a stronger narcotic, and we might even  simply presume for the purpose of sexual assault alcohol not being the only catalyst of chemical attack to be made on a person.

    Say it with me..............
    the Drug War is a real War...............
    People we love die..............
    It is a War which has been fought for Centeries............
    It will out live me........
    This battle is unlike many others ever seen...………...

    We call this whole truth. When a person cannot be honest to themselves they will never be honest to others.

  • @piloteer ;

    What I am brining to the debate is a look into what is the united state which describes any danger marijuana creates as a basic principle. Pollution is the basic principle as united state that is made by a preservation of a union set on two constitutional principles.

    Decriminalizing pollution as a united state does not appear to be practical in allowing people a civil liberty of enjoyment in pursuit of happiness. Realistically however there are already thresholds of air pollution in effect by law which set legal precedent on the second half of Constitutional principle.

    The target of Air quality is already weighed out for us by an amount of THC in ppm. Which can be tested for under many conditions in the use allowed by public. Again, there is no need to legalize what was never ordained as illegal, marijuana was always proven to be used in a illegal way and Ex post facto construction of legislation is loosing its common defense to the general welfare by the creation of technologies advancements.

    Alcohol, Tabaco and marijuana’s united state is less commercial religions outside the popular set of shared belief structure followed by a majority. So, the truthful question is not set on if THC a pollutant, the truth is pivoting on is pollution a united state which describes the threat marijuana creates easier to understand by all people. Instead of say a bag of marijuana is dangerous because it has been ordained as illegal.

    To share a proper context the Drug War has been fought before the creation of United State Constitution and any efforts set forth in writing by declaration of Independence to preserve separations of harm as lost liberty on the public. This is not what has to be it is simply my best effort as a answer to united liberty as a united state shared in a republic fashion. It appears that the forum title is a goal more then filed grievance.
  • Talking of marijuana on national news today in the UK it was declared that the legalization of marijuana will most likely occur within the next five to ten years.

    As long as there are pragmatic control measures as there are with alcohol and tobacco, then I really do not see any reason as to why this shouldn't be legalized
    Plaffelvohfen



  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019

    Below is some information for the pro marijuana crowd:

    https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/smoking-weed


    https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/alcohol-use.html

    "There is no known safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy or while trying to get pregnant. There is also no safe time during pregnancy to drink. All types of alcohol are equally harmful, including all wines and beer.

    FASDs are preventable if a woman does not drink alcohol during pregnancy.

    Why Alcohol Is Dangerous

    Alcohol in the mother’s blood passes to the baby through the umbilical cord. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can cause miscarriage, stillbirth, and a range of lifelong physical, behavioral, and intellectual disabilities. These disabilities are known as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs). Children with FASDs might have the following characteristics and behaviors:

    • Abnormal facial features, such as a smooth ridge between the nose and upper lip (this ridge is called the philtrum)
    • Small head size
    • Shorter-than-average height
    • Low body weight
    • Poor coordination
    • Hyperactive behavior
    • Difficulty with attention
    • Poor memory
    • Difficulty in school (especially with math)
    • Learning disabilities
    • Speech and language delays
    • Intellectual disability or low IQ
    • Poor reasoning and judgment skills
    • Sleep and sucking problems as a baby
    • Vision or hearing problems
    • Problems with the heart, kidney, or bones

    Learn more about FASDs »

    How Much Alcohol Is Dangerous

    There is no known safe amount of alcohol to drink while pregnant.

    When Alcohol Is Dangerous

    There is no safe time to drink alcohol during pregnancy. Alcohol can cause problems for the developing baby throughout pregnancy, including before a woman knows she is pregnant. Drinking alcohol in the first three months of pregnancy can cause the baby to have abnormal facial features. Growth and central nervous system problems (e.g., low birthweight, behavioral problems) can occur from drinking alcohol anytime during pregnancy. The baby’s brain is developing throughout pregnancy and can be affected by exposure to alcohol at any time.

    If a woman is drinking alcohol during pregnancy, it is never too late to stop. The sooner a woman stops drinking, the better it will be for both her baby and herself. "

    The pro marijuana crowd, the alcoholic crowd, and the chain smoking crowd, can view any argument, that goes against the grain of the addictions, as they choose to, but it doesn't make their abuse, right, with another life inside of their bodies.

    It's sad that there are ladies out there who don't mind abusing their own bodies with their addiction issues, but to put an unborn baby, through their own addiction issues, speaks to how abusive, that some can be with their addictions.

    And another thought, Marijuana isn't alcohol, or tobacco.  

    But its a silly, and fraudulent selling point to group marijuana in with alcohol, and tobacco, because the pro marijuana crowd, needs such talking points, as a way to manipulate, coax, or persuade, the rest of the public, who don't use, and abuse, recreational marijuana, like the marijuana user's have been doing for years, and want the rest of the public, to mindfully buy off on the fraudulent selling point, that is harmful to an unborn baby, isn't it?

    A lady using marijuana while, she is pregnant, and her baby, is born with some of those birth defects, what excuse, might she use to explain to her child, why her child's health is in, the shape that it's in?

    Because this or that law, maybe doesn't make marijuana, alcohol, or tobacco use illegal, while pregnant, somehow justifies, the birth defects created, because of a marijuana addicts, alcoholics, or chain smokers use, and abuse, of those intoxicants or stimulants, at their individual say so?

    But please, pro marijuana crowd, continue to push that fraudulent argument, so that the public, can be educated on those select, pro marijuana selling points, to create empathy, or sympathy for the marijuana using crowd? 

    Because that's how my opinion, has become continuesly shaped, by some of the pro marijuana crowd, and their fraudulent selling points, used to sell, to the public, as a whole, when it comes to their pro marijuana talking points rhetoric?  

    The decriminalization of marijuana means, reducing the public overall, down to the standards of marijuana user's mindset.

    IE, the single marijuana addict without kids.

    The lady marijuana addict with a baby on the way.

    And those marijuana using parents, who appear to be placing their marijuana use, above their own families?


    But the non marijuana using public, can refer to:

    Parents Opposed to Pot.com

    Or CALM (Citizens Against the Legalization of Marijuana.)

    If the public is getting educated by a mixed message, being taught by some of the pro marijuana supporters, because some of the pro marijuana crowd, want the public overall, to give into the demands of the recreational marijuana user, by doing the millions of recreational marijuana user's a favor, by you, the overall public, in decriminalizing recreational marijuana, for those marijuana user's?

    Because pretty much, every culture in the United States, has an individual of their individual culture, incarcerated for their illegal marijuana use, for being in possession of marijuana, and dealing marijuana in various parts of the country?

    And those incarcerated criminals, have been redifined by many, as (Non Violent Criminals.)

    And this new definition, is a tool, to apply to you the overall public, as a form of leverage, to help influence you, into seeing their incarcerated status, from their perspectives?

    They want you to help them, to give them a second, third, or even a fourth chance, so that after getting out of prison, or jail, they can continue to indulge in marijuana, the same illegal drug, that got them incarcerated in the first place?

    That's why some of the pro marijuana crowd, goes out of their way, to keep reiterating their "decriminalization of recreational Marijuana" messages, via the various formats that they continue to utilize, along with the various legalization of marijuana Polls, and the various magazine covers, being used to push the recreational marijuana, and the medicinal marijuana messages, at bookstore, or at a grocery store checkout lane, because they want you to be educated on their messaging, while you're looking at greeting cards, or buying your groceries? 

    WebMD, has more information.



    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20181019/NEWS/181019875/marijuana-in-babies-colo-researchers-find-new-evidence

    October 19, 2018 01:00 AM

    "Marijuana in babies? Colo. researchers find new evidence

    SUSANNAH LUTHI "

    "After a nursing woman smokes marijuana once, her baby through her breast milk will consume traces of the drug's chief psychoactive element for at least six weeks and possibly longer, according to a soon-to-be-released study out of Colorado.

    For physicians who see cannabis-associated birth complications and long-term brain development concerns with children, the research is another step to try to square growing public nonchalance about marijuana with medical guidelines about use.

    Researchers and clinicians have long warned women not to use marijuana while they are pregnant or nursing. They agree that infants' exposure to tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, demonstrably changes their brain development. But their studies are limited. Legally, child protective services would have to step in if a child tests positive for the drug—a challenge for researchers who want to figure out how much THC infants absorb and what this means for them in the long term. "

    "Meanwhile, marijuana laws are loosening, and attitudes about cannabis have shifted. Physicians who witness the trends up close fear there will be another public health crisis that will hurt children.

    "We are in the opioid crisis due to expanding prescriptions for opioids with little thought to the consequences of widespread use, including use during pregnancy," said Dr. Lauren M. Jansson, director of pediatrics for the Johns Hopkins Center for Addiction and Pregnancy. "My fear is that we will see the same thing with marijuana."

    The forthcoming study from Colorado researchers is the first to show how tenaciously THC can live in breast milk. The authors, neonatologist Dr. Erica Wymore and pediatrician Dr. Maya Bunik, work out of Children's Hospital Colorado. The state is ground zero for legalizing recreational use of the drug in the U.S.

    But the researchers' deepening concerns don't seem to be hitting the broader medical community amid changing public views, the growth of the cannabis industry and a backlash against the former stigma around marijuana use. Jansson has applied for grants to study marijuana-dependent mothers and impacts of cannabis on their infants before and after birth but, she said, those applications haven't been well-received.

    "There's no interest there, right now," she said. "So I'm doing preliminary research and describing the effects I'm seeing."

    Bunik and Wymore had to overcome financial hurdles too, even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention originally commissioned their study. The agency ended up halting the funds after budget cuts, so the hospital and Colorado's health department had to pitch in money so they could complete their work.

    This is especially frustrating for them because of what they have already found.

    Jansson, whose expertise is in opioids and maternal opioid use disorder, has worked on maternal addiction issues clinically since 1991 and as a researcher since 2000. In children exposed only to cannabis, she is seeing behavior dysfunctions she said she can't ignore. Earlier this summer, she co-authored an article for JAMA highlighting preliminary research that traced prenatal exposure's adverse effects on "infant neurobehavior and child development up through the teen years."

    Exposure after birth could exacerbate these effects, her study said. She noted impaired memory, aggression, sleep disturbances and other "developmental and behavioral concerns."

    She emphasized she is seeing these effects in kids who have been exposed to marijuana alone, not combined with alcohol, nicotine or other drugs.

    Bunik and Wymore have also noted issues with "cognition, executive function and early depression" in children ages 8 to 12 whose mothers self-reported exposure.

    "We know that self-report actually underestimates" use, Bunik added.

    Meanwhile, states continue to relax laws around cannabis, and public perception toward marijuana use is changing too. Nine states and the District of Columbia allow both medical and recreational use and 21 additional states allow medical use.

    Wymore and Bunik told Modern Healthcare that women increasingly are using marijuana to curb pregnancy symptoms like nausea and mood swings, and then they are finding it hard to quit once the baby arrives. Out of the 30 to 50 women who signed up for the study, only 10 were able to abstain from marijuana for the entire course.

    "The moms said, 'I couldn't deal and needed to smoke,' " Bunik said. "That for us is concerning. You probably need to start discussions [about use] early in pregnancy. By the time the baby arrives they're accustomed to using as part of a coping mechanism."

    About 70% of Colorado's cannabis dispensaries recommended marijuana products to pregnant women to treat their first-trimester nausea, according to an August study by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

    "Few dispensaries encouraged discussion with a healthcare provider without prompting," the study concluded. "As cannabis legalization expands, policy and education efforts should involve dispensaries."

    The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or ACOG, has also found that 34% to 60% of marijuana users keep using during pregnancy "with many women believing that it is relatively safe to use during pregnancy and less expensive than tobacco." A 2015 analysis in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that more than 70% of pregnant women see no or slight risk to using marijuana once or twice a week.

    In September, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a finding that 8.5% of young pregnant women between 18 and 25 reported past-month marijuana use in 2016.

    And like the studies on post-birth exposure to cannabis, research on fetal impact is also limited. The ACOG has concluded that frequent use appears to increase the risk of low birth weight, while less-than-weekly marijuana use does not. Its clinical guidance has also made note of several studies that showed "statistically significantly smaller birth lengths and head circumferences as well as lower birth weights" among infants whose mothers used marijuana during their pregnancies.

    The findings were "more pronounced among women who used more marijuana, particularly during the first and second trimesters."

    The government and the healthcare industry do not know what these trends currently cost or will cost in the future. Researchers have had a difficult time quantifying medical expenses from maternal marijuana use because the effects on exposed infants are similar to those in infants whose mothers used tobacco, alcohol or other drugs during pregnancy. Past research found that women who smoked tobacco or drank while they were pregnant were likelier to use cannabis as well.

    A 2017 white paper from Truven Health Analytics estimated that premature infants or infants with a low birth weight typically cost Medicaid an average of nearly $20,000, or $14,000 above the average cost of a baby born at a healthy weight or without other complications. All told, the analysis found, low birth-weight babies or otherwise complicated births cost Medicaid an additional $3 billion each year. The report said states should focus on reducing premature births in order to save money.

    Colorado does not analyze the claims data that would pinpoint costs. Nearly 14% of the nearly 30,000 Colorado babies born in 2015 whose deliveries were paid for by Medicaid were low birth weight. Of the total babies born that year, 27% went to the neonatal intensive-care unit, and 2% were preterm. In 2016, the numbers shifted slightly: about 23% of babies went to the NICU, nearly 7% were low birth weight, and 3% were preterm.

    But the state's Medicaid department, which provided these numbers, did not have a breakdown for the causes of these complications, and a department spokesperson noted that claims data would not be a reliable way to track them. She added that this kind of research would require "significant resources."

    The Colorado Legislature this year introduced nearly 30 marijuana-related bills, but so far no measure that would address usage around pregnancy, according to staff for the state's Speaker of the House. Colorado became the first U.S. state to legalize recreational cannabis use in late 2012 and has been ground zero for the marijuana industry's explosive growth and subsequent regulation.

    The state's health department has published strong guidance for providers with adamant warnings.

    "If patient desires a pregnancy, discuss importance of cessation of marijuana and other potentially harmful substances," the guidance stated. "Consider use of contraception while the patient is working towards cessation of substances." 

    The above information speaks volumes about a mother's marijuana use, and the information about unborn babies, and their marijuana use, being in a sense absorbed by the unborn baby?

  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    "@TKDB, DO NOT ADDRESS ME DIRECTLY ANY LONGER. I WILL NOT ANSWER TO YOUR MINDLESS SWILL. I ONLY ADDRESS SERIOUS DEBATERS NOW!!!!!

    #DELETETKDB
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    "@TKDB, DO NOT ADDRESS ME DIRECTLY ANY LONGER. I WILL NOT ANSWER TO YOUR MINDLESS SWILL. I ONLY ADDRESS SERIOUS DEBATERS NOW!!!!!

    #DELETETKDB "

    OK, I won't, but I will address the overall, pro marijuana crowd.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    "@TKDB

    Feel free to address the whole crowd, but stop singling ME out. I refuse to engage in direct conversation with you regarding any debates. 
    Plaffelvohfen

  • What cannot be found is support by evidence for a past legislation of substance ownership to insinuate that marijuana was really ever illegal as a substance in any quantity. The admissions of guilt and taking of marijuana was all done on a pollution threat made on the public welfare. If a person grows marijuana and does not smoke, eat or release THC that might affect someone accidently explain the charm or threat, there must be a common defense in describing a past legal state of the union as united state. There was a time when growing marijuana was a major industry supplying rope and sails for ships all over the world. 

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. Among other things, this law authorizes EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants.

    The addition in legislated law by epe is made on hazardous pollutants, narcotics in water supplies, narcotic is septic systems, narcotics in land fills, all meet the idea of pollutant many narcotic meet the requirement hazardous as well. It is a greater necessity to allow open regulation of marijuana to inspect narcotic pollutants being added by consumers of commercial medications in unauthorized uses, illgal narcotics as well. Realistically we look at a restructure of principle holding law relavant describing crimes that are the greater evil on civil liberty.

    The relief of consitutional preservation is highlighed by a lack of any pregant woman making marijuana rope to harm the child within her, a woman cdrownding a baby in a tub filled with marijauna.

    https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act

    How do people use marijuana?

    People smoke marijuana in hand-rolled cigarettes (joints) or in pipes or water pipes (bongs). They also smoke it in blunts—emptied cigars that have been partly or completely refilled with marijuana. To avoid inhaling smoke, some people are using vaporizers. These devices pull the active ingredients (including THC) from the marijuana and collect their vapor in a storage unit. A person then inhales the vapor, not the smoke. Some vaporizers use a liquid marijuana extract.

    People can mix marijuana in food (edibles), such as brownies, cookies, or candy, or brew it as a tea. A newly popular method of use is smoking or eating different forms of THC-rich resins (see "Marijuana Extracts"). 

    https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

    One of the goals of the Act was to set and achieve NAAQS in every state by 1975 in order to address the public health and welfare risks posed by certain widespread air pollutants. The setting of these pollutant standards was coupled with directing the states to develop state implementation plans (SIPs), applicable to appropriate industrial sources in the state, in order to achieve these standards. The Act was amended in 1977 and 1990 primarily to set new goals (dates) for achieving attainment of NAAQS since many areas of the country had failed to meet the deadlines.

    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act addresses emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Prior to 1990, CAA established a risk-based program under which only a few standards were developed. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments revised Section 112 to first require issuance of technology-based standards for major sources and certain area sources. "Major sources" are defined as a stationary source or group of stationary sources that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of a hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of a combination of hazardous air pollutants. An "area source" is any stationary source that is not a major source.

    For major sources, Section 112 requires that EPA establish emission standards that require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of hazardous air pollutants. These emission standards are commonly referred to as "maximum achievable control technology" or "MACT" standards. Eight years after the technology-based MACT standards are issued for a source category, EPA is required to review those standards to determine whether any residual risk exists for that source category and, if necessary, revise the standards to address such risk.

  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    To the pro marijuana crowd, why the purposeful silence? 

    The public in general is wrong, and your marijuana addiction deserves to be rewarded? 

    How do your families feel about your drug habits? 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @Idheinz

    @SemiSteve

    @rjhenn

    Be brave, and provide a counter argument for the below?

    https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20181019/NEWS/181019875/marijuana-in-babies-colo-researchers-find-new-evidence

    October 19, 2018 01:00 AM

    "Marijuana in babies? Colo. researchers find new evidence

    SUSANNAH LUTHI "

    "After a nursing woman smokes marijuana once, her baby through her breast milk will consume traces of the drug's chief psychoactive element for at least six weeks and possibly longer, according to a soon-to-be-released study out of Colorado.

    For physicians who see cannabis-associated birth complications and long-term brain development concerns with children, the research is another step to try to square growing public nonchalance about marijuana with medical guidelines about use."


    "Researchers and clinicians have long warned women not to use marijuana while they are pregnant or nursing. They agree that infants' exposure to tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, demonstrably changes their brain development. But their studies are limited. Legally, child protective services would have to step in if a child tests positive for the drug—a challenge for researchers who want to figure out how much THC infants absorb and what this means for them in the long term. "

    "Meanwhile, marijuana laws are loosening, and attitudes about cannabis have shifted. Physicians who witness the trends up close fear there will be another public health crisis that will hurt children.

    "We are in the opioid crisis due to expanding prescriptions for opioids with little thought to the consequences of widespread use, including use during pregnancy," said Dr. Lauren M. Jansson, director of pediatrics for the Johns Hopkins Center for Addiction and Pregnancy. "My fear is that we will see the same thing with marijuana."

    The forthcoming study from Colorado researchers is the first to show how tenaciously THC can live in breast milk. The authors, neonatologist Dr. Erica Wymore and pediatrician Dr. Maya Bunik, work out of Children's Hospital Colorado. The state is ground zero for legalizing recreational use of the drug in the U.S.

    But the researchers' deepening concerns don't seem to be hitting the broader medical community amid changing public views, the growth of the cannabis industry and a backlash against the former stigma around marijuana use. Jansson has applied for grants to study marijuana-dependent mothers and impacts of cannabis on their infants before and after birth but, she said, those applications haven't been well-received.

    "There's no interest there, right now," she said. "So I'm doing preliminary research and describing the effects I'm seeing."

    Bunik and Wymore had to overcome financial hurdles too, even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention originally commissioned their study. The agency ended up halting the funds after budget cuts, so the hospital and Colorado's health department had to pitch in money so they could complete their work.

    This is especially frustrating for them because of what they have already found.

    Jansson, whose expertise is in opioids and maternal opioid use disorder, has worked on maternal addiction issues clinically since 1991 and as a researcher since 2000. In children exposed only to cannabis, she is seeing behavior dysfunctions she said she can't ignore. Earlier this summer, she co-authored an article for JAMA highlighting preliminary research that traced prenatal exposure's adverse effects on "infant neurobehavior and child development up through the teen years."

    Exposure after birth could exacerbate these effects, her study said. She noted impaired memory, aggression, sleep disturbances and other "developmental and behavioral concerns."

    She emphasized she is seeing these effects in kids who have been exposed to marijuana alone, not combined with alcohol, nicotine or other drugs.

    Bunik and Wymore have also noted issues with "cognition, executive function and early depression" in children ages 8 to 12 whose mothers self-reported exposure.

    "We know that self-report actually underestimates" use, Bunik added.

    Meanwhile, states continue to relax laws around cannabis, and public perception toward marijuana use is changing too. Nine states and the District of Columbia allow both medical and recreational use and 21 additional states allow medical use.

    Wymore and Bunik told Modern Healthcare that women increasingly are using marijuana to curb pregnancy symptoms like nausea and mood swings, and then they are finding it hard to quit once the baby arrives. Out of the 30 to 50 women who signed up for the study, only 10 were able to abstain from marijuana for the entire course.

    "The moms said, 'I couldn't deal and needed to smoke,' " Bunik said. "That for us is concerning. You probably need to start discussions [about use] early in pregnancy. By the time the baby arrives they're accustomed to using as part of a coping mechanism."

    About 70% of Colorado's cannabis dispensaries recommended marijuana products to pregnant women to treat their first-trimester nausea, according to an August study by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

    "Few dispensaries encouraged discussion with a healthcare provider without prompting," the study concluded. "As cannabis legalization expands, policy and education efforts should involve dispensaries."

    The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or ACOG, has also found that 34% to 60% of marijuana users keep using during pregnancy "with many women believing that it is relatively safe to use during pregnancy and less expensive than tobacco." A 2015 analysis in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that more than 70% of pregnant women see no or slight risk to using marijuana once or twice a week.

    In September, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a finding that 8.5% of young pregnant women between 18 and 25 reported past-month marijuana use in 2016.

    And like the studies on post-birth exposure to cannabis, research on fetal impact is also limited. The ACOG has concluded that frequent use appears to increase the risk of low birth weight, while less-than-weekly marijuana use does not. Its clinical guidance has also made note of several studies that showed "statistically significantly smaller birth lengths and head circumferences as well as lower birth weights" among infants whose mothers used marijuana during their pregnancies.

    The findings were "more pronounced among women who used more marijuana, particularly during the first and second trimesters."

    The government and the healthcare industry do not know what these trends currently cost or will cost in the future. Researchers have had a difficult time quantifying medical expenses from maternal marijuana use because the effects on exposed infants are similar to those in infants whose mothers used tobacco, alcohol or other drugs during pregnancy. Past research found that women who smoked tobacco or drank while they were pregnant were likelier to use cannabis as well.

    A 2017 white paper from Truven Health Analytics estimated that premature infants or infants with a low birth weight typically cost Medicaid an average of nearly $20,000, or $14,000 above the average cost of a baby born at a healthy weight or without other complications. All told, the analysis found, low birth-weight babies or otherwise complicated births cost Medicaid an additional $3 billion each year. The report said states should focus on reducing premature births in order to save money.

    Colorado does not analyze the claims data that would pinpoint costs. Nearly 14% of the nearly 30,000 Colorado babies born in 2015 whose deliveries were paid for by Medicaid were low birth weight. Of the total babies born that year, 27% went to the neonatal intensive-care unit, and 2% were preterm. In 2016, the numbers shifted slightly: about 23% of babies went to the NICU, nearly 7% were low birth weight, and 3% were preterm.

    But the state's Medicaid department, which provided these numbers, did not have a breakdown for the causes of these complications, and a department spokesperson noted that claims data would not be a reliable way to track them. She added that this kind of research would require "significant resources."

    The Colorado Legislature this year introduced nearly 30 marijuana-related bills, but so far no measure that would address usage around pregnancy, according to staff for the state's Speaker of the House. Colorado became the first U.S. state to legalize recreational cannabis use in late 2012 and has been ground zero for the marijuana industry's explosive growth and subsequent regulation.

    The state's health department has published strong guidance for providers with adamant warnings.

    "If patient desires a pregnancy, discuss importance of cessation of marijuana and other potentially harmful substances," the guidance stated. "Consider use of contraception while the patient is working towards cessation of substances." 

    The above information speaks volumes about a mother's marijuana use, and the information about unborn babies, and their marijuana use, being in a sense absorbed by the unborn baby? "

     
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @TKDB ;

    To the pro marijuana crowd, why the purposeful silence? 

    How do your families feel about your drug habits?

    I’m not silent my grievance has been stated clearly. The issue of health brought to the table is a pollution issue not substance issue it is the real narcotics which hold a substance abuse as chemical weapon.

    Be brave, and provide a counter argument for the below? Removing the structure of Ex post Facto legislation held against marijuana has nothing to do with the threats made by pollutants on pregnant woman.

    https://www.parents.com/pregnancy/complications/health-and-safety-issues/12-cosmetic-ingredients-to-avoid-during-pregnancy/

    https://facty.com/conditions/pregnancy/10-foods-to-improve-pregnancy/9/


  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    More of your Ex Post Facto preaching?

    You have refused to supply the public with any legitimate evidence, that shows from the Marijuana Law's of those states, that legalized marijuana, to satisfy the marijuana addicts, self created drug issues, where you Ex Post Facto rhetoric, is in published print, along with those same states Marijuana Law's?

    Explain to the public, why you refuse to provide that published documentation?

    I provided links to those same states Marijuana Law's, in regards to "Consumption," and no where in the same law's, do they have anything about the pollution of Marijuana use, in their published print, do they?

    And I Challenge anyone from the Pro Marijuana Crowd, to help you, in finding the very same information, that would support your Ex Post Facto, and Pollution arguments, that you have still failed to provide evidence to, to support your continuously expressed claims? 


    Plaffelvohfen
  • @TKDB ;

    You have refused to supply the public with any legitimate evidence, that shows from the Marijuana Law's of those states, that legalized marijuana, to satisfy the marijuana addicts, self created drug issues, where you Ex Post Facto rhetoric, is in published print, along with those same states Marijuana Law's?

    The response to a link is to locate the basic principle and legal precedent in America it is called preserving united state constitution as a single principle. Calling for the reinstatement of unconstitutional law justified by a declaration of independence set on safety is not providing a link to a common defense to the entire general welfare of this United state.

    The limitation of links to substantiate a grievance of Ex post Facto is due to the fact all link, the so-called evidence for us the reader, coming from you.  Provides enough information only confirming a suspicion when saying there is no introduction of fact by regulation written in law on marijuana as pollutant, with air pollutant level for marijuana publicly. The attempt to change evidence ever collected would be taking place when saying owning marijuana is enough to say it must be used for THC by all owners as united states. The basic idea is proclamation to infringe on civil liberty of independence for profit that is motivated behind advances made against human liberty itself.

    I provided links to those same states Marijuana Law's, regarding "Consumption," and no-where in the same law's, do they have anything about the pollution of Marijuana use, in their published print, do they?

    Kind of the point. We then move on to say little babies are subjected to the pollutant THC to where again without fail the evidence is used to state any amount of marijuana is hazardous. You are clear on this correct? You are telling a truth? No-one for Centuries has characterized marijuana's THC as a hazardous pollutant you it cannot even be held in the public. Can you detail please as common defense how marijuana justifies a enriched plutonium status by law? Why it is knowingly miss-represented as a chemical narcotic? Understanding we live in a world with law setting an example of perjury undermines the integrity of United State Constitution. These discrepancies are hard to find, very hard to prove, still there is no excuse not to correct them when located as proven by your lack of attention in this detail of truth a law.   

    A little world History.

    https://www.truthabouthemp.org/History.html

    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/precedent

    I yield the balance of my time back to piloteer. Thank you.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch