Marijuana is good for you. Period

Let me start by saying that I have greatly enjoyed having this debate. I trust we have both given each other some food for thought. I have yet to come up against a stupid opponent.:-) That being said I suppose I shall now make my final rebuttals. "When i first read this i was in shock. i have to admit that i read that site more than 5 times before inserting(as one would that is debating) to make sure it fit for my case. And NO where does it say anything about having "cancer-causing chemicals"." I was not referring to the New Scientist article. You used the Washington Post article in that part of the debate. "I think its funny how you claim that there is cancer causing chemicals in marijuana? And that not admitting this is ignorance on my part?. well i would incline you to read this article:" http://www.washingtonpost.com...... The article clearly says, "Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought. Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said "MAY"(emphasis added) kill aging cells." That being cleared up let us continue. "Ok these articles would probly blow this debate away if we still lived in the 90s. 2 of your studies were done before 2000. As opposed to all my studies being done after 2005."(referring to the CNN and NIDA links I posted) I admit the CNN article is several years old, but the NIDA link is not. I posted the CNN link because it was a study done by the National Cancer Institute, and(to my knowledge) they have not changed their position. The NIDA link, however, is updated as data becomes available. You also stated that all your studies were done after 2005. However, all the sources you gave each refer to the same exact study, not multiple. One study is not sufficient to prove a point. It is enough to warrant further research, but it does not offer conclusive evidence. "I dont reject all studies, really i just have studies which i are more true. And all the studies your laying on the table are out of date, while mine are mostly done within the last couple years." I believe I showed you that that is not the case. One of the articles I posted was several years old, but the cancer institute has not changed their position. "they give medical marijuana (marijuana) to cancer patients and people with glaucoma , as well as numerous other diseases'. If it was soo with tremors and nausea and "reduced blood flow to the brain", then why would they give it to these people. (you might argue that cancer people are going to die anyway) which they might not. But the glaucoma people are gonna live. (just in case, you brought that up)." Medical marijuana is a subject far to large to start now, but, needless to say, it is a HIGHLY controversial issue among the medical class. The whole issue is whether or not the benefits of smoking marijuana as a type of treatment outweigh the dangers this drug poses. Most doctors say, "no". However, doctors ARE in favor of researching marijuana to see if extracting beneficial elements in it can be done safely. I support this approach. If you are going to use the argument that weed is an antidepressant then the same case could be made for drinking. After all, many alcoholics drink to escape depression in life, but does that mean that getting drunk is not harmful? Far from it. "Ok as for the estronaut website, this website is 9 years old and it would seem less than credible and as for your pregnacy-info website, i can not load it. i regret this." If I had used the estronaut site as my only reference then you may have had reason to doubt my argument, but I listed several others that are not old. I regret that you cannot open the pregnancy info site. I also noticed that you did not even mention the link I posted from the New Scientist regarding this issue. "I must say this is really ignorrant to say. What about the people who have diseases and have medical marijuana to reduce pain or help with glaucoma? You cant tell me it has never had a positive effect on someone."(in response to my statement that marijuana has no positive effect) I hold to my statement, although, I would probably re-word it if I had the chance. What I meant is that marijuana has no possible benefits in its natural form that could possibly counterbalance the dangers. It has never had a positive, lasting(the word I accidentally omitted the first time) effect. Marijuana does not cure anything. It only masks the symptoms. Glaucoma is easily treated so to use marijuana to reduce eye pressure is needless and irresponsible as the obvious side-effects of marijuana far outweigh the benefits. I found an interesting article I would like for you to take a look at. http://www.ccfa.org... CCFA.org: Medical Marajuana "You choosing to not smoke marijuana is your choice. And "in light of the evidence" i believe that marijuanas DO outweigh your unproven "negative" effects, some which are based upon opinion. It is true, the goverment can not sway my argument. i accept that, because that is a whole other debate." My evidence is far from opinion. Here are a few extra links you can visit for more information. I know the first two are several years old, but I think you can gain some useful information from them. Just because they weren't done in the last three years doesn't mean they are automatically negated. http://www.aafp.org... Adverse Effects of Marijuana - American Academy of Family Physicians http://www.intheknowzone.com... in the know zone - marijuana http://www.markhoustonrecovery.com... Study Finds More Harmful Effects Of Marijuana | Mark Houston Recovery http://www.nida.nih.gov... InfoFacts - Marijuana http://www.boston.com... Studies link psychosis, teenage marijuana use - The Boston Globe In closing I once again wish to thank my opponent for providing a chance to debate this very important issue. GOD BLESS