Crackpot theories are not "evidence." You have no expertise on the subject. You cited pages where people made fun of people claiming withdrawl symptoms, on account of marijuana not being physically addictive.

Then you just rant incoherently.

"Your science time reports only so many heroin or cocaine users and a much larger number of pot smokers. This only supports my core  demonstration that it is an issue of percentages."

What? You're presuming some sort of causality with absolutely no basis. I'm not taking it on faith. "Take it on faith!" is not an argument.

"Your Eurika web link reports pot smokers who started in highschool were more likely to drop out and less likely to enter college (which supports me btw)."

Again you presume causality with 0 basis. Are people who would drop out, regardless of smoking, more or less likely to do illegal drugs? More likely. "Take it on faith!" is not an argument.

"Your ScienceBlog url actually supports making it harder to get pot... just thought I would point that out... because ease of access is why they try it instead of other stuff. If the ease of access was removed they may or may not try alcohol or smoking."

This ignorantly pretends it's as harmful and physically addictive as you claim. Which is not. The claim is laughable.

You keep presuming a causal relationship where there's no evidence of one. "Expertise"? hahahahaha made more hysterical by the fact that you continually post flat-out lies about marijuana. You continually presume a causal relationship without providing any actual evidence of one. That's not logical.

Disputes your 10% traffic fatalities claim, and rakes it over the coals in comparison to alcohol:
http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence

http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/why-medical-marijuana-laws-reduce-traffic-deaths/

I know I'm getting sloppy with my sources, but I'm just clicking every link. 100% of them dispute your ridiculous claims:
(1% of fatal traffic accidents, and obviously this isn't ruling out other contributing factors:)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_Number_of_traffic_deaths_due_to_Marijuana
Considering the amount of pot use in this country, that's a tiny number. And, if it's a problem, you could always cover it with DUI laws, even decriminalized.

When pot's legal people drink less. When people drink less, less people die because of drunk drivers. 1% of traffic fatalities attributed to pot (I'm not arguing driving while stoned should be legal), compared with a 10% drop in traffic fatalities when pot is legalized and less people drink? That's a very life-saving argument for pot. Thanks for providing it.

"Pot can be addictive, it can be destructive, it can cause you to have a harmful effect upon others, it can lead to mental health issues."

And the evidence of causality is...? Stop pretending there is any. Yes, unhealthy people are more likely to smoke pot. And drink. And to do all kinds of other things beyond moderation and excessively. This isn't any evidence that those things are the cause of those people being unhealthy. You're repeatedly claiming causality, yet you're oblivious to your complete lack of evidence of it. I've pointed this out. You're either pretending not to understand what causality is or why it's important or you legitimately don't know. In either case, you're not an "expert," and you're not making any sort of case here.

You're just making things up. Your claims are downright bizarre and I'm not interested in "discussing" this issue further with you, as you obviously attribute terrible things in your life to pot when it's clearly not responsible for them. It's awkward, and your claims are so ignorant it's embarrassing.

Edit: Oooo I just read this:
"Dismissing my evidence is of course your only recourse. Dismissing it is why you will always be frustrated by those of us who fight to keep it illegal. Show you are a reasoning, logical, intelligent man and actually read this stuff, and post about it."

You've dismissed 100% of my arguments and responded to 0, and yet these juvenile insults keep coming post after post after post. Grow up.

That you've refused to respond to a single one of my arguments is a concession that they're strong points in my favor. Presumably you believe your arguments are stronger, but since they're fictional propaganda lies disproven by science 100% of the time, that really wraps up the "debate."

The forums he linked were pretty hysterical. With gems like:
"I've been depressed for months. I started smoking pot a few days ago. OMFG WTF IF I STOP WILL I ESPLODE!?!???!?"
how could we possibly ask if, maybe, this kid was a moron to start with and marijuana didn't make him a dysfunctional idiot.

You say causation is not correlation, but you also ignore the hard statistics

1 in 4 of people seeking, I said SEEKING, not being forced, treatment for addiction is there because of Marijuana.

You also utterly throw out ex-addicts and current addicts testimoney.

You ignore I have a degree, that I proffessionally transported addicts to DOZENS of programs, that my personal experiences do grant me insight into the issue which I have proffessional experience in.

Look you could be the most responsible pot smoker in the world, with no side effects, no issues with quitting for two years, and so forth... but you are not representative of all, a majority or a large minority of pot smokers.

I will ackowledge your most recent posts when you can accept I have some experience and knowledge in the subject.

kill the xkcd, kill it!!!!!

Your utter disdain for my proffessional experience, for the posts made by real addicts seeking help is horrific.

It's like ignoring Jews from death camps and the soldiers who freed them... because you liked Hitler.

I am sorry but clearly you wish to ignore evidence and other peoples knowledge. You are just another ignorant Libertarian.

> You ignore I have a degree

Maybe I missed it..but what degree is it and what school?

Gateway drug theory is garbage.
I linked (and there's much more) the fact that marijuana decreases traffic fatalities, not increases them, by a significant margin.
Your own personal experiences are useless. As is evident with the children posting stupid bullshit on a forum, you'll believe anything. You've provided 0 evidence that drugs caused any negative behavior you've described.

I've responded to every garbage idea you've crapped into this thread. You've responded to absolutely nothing I've said. You have a weird way of conceding. Keep embarrassing yourself. If you ever want to respond to a single thing I said, I'll be here.

I already linked to information on and explained why your claims of traffic fatalities are false. If you want to remain ignorant, that's your choice. But you should probably stop reminding us all here.

That some idiot did other stuff after pot is not evidence of causality. I've already discussed this at length and linked more material.

"You have not even counted me, nor gotten close."

Now you're just trolling. I've won this debate. I'm done responding to your trolling. Try to give me a challenge next time.

LSD and Pot is what one relative of mine used.

He was way above average intelligence (like much of the family), no defects, normal childhood, and all that.

Those two drugs gave him more serious mental disorders than a schools chalkboard can hold. While medicines have reduced the problems... he still is not very functional.... though he is adequately self sufficient he still makes... 'art' that is very ummm..... abstract?

But hey it's only your mind, who cares!

Kemp you pullled out stuff from the hard drug left. Try real statistics.

What Kemp fails to realize is I have been on the front lines of this war. I have taken people to clinics, I have taken custody of those unable to care for themselves anymore and put them into hospital wards. I have picked up those who tried suicide (but failed) as a means to escape drug addictions.

He glosses over that I have done security in the projects and in the worst neighborhoods of Portland, that I know what the addicts will do to get their next hit.

He fails to even know (because I omited it) that I worked securing piss tests from taint (done by addicts in court ordered programs).

Nor does he know that I was in a home for the homeless for five months, the only Veteran to get in, the rest ex-drug addicts who had daily talks about the addiction, how to fight it, and so forth.

He does not know me, and he dismisses me out of hand without a clue.

I have seen the eyes of an animal in a human skull, I have seen people regress to an angry, intollerant, paranoid ignoramus when they could not get their pot. I have met more people than I care to remember who had crackpot idea's in their heads due to marijuana addiction.

He tries to dismiss with a tainted site drug related crashes. Excuse me but Marijuana causes halucigens and while it speeds the blood rate up it slows the mind down.

Kemp tries to act like allowing drugs is a situation where we can manage it like drinking and driving, aka under the influence... but he ignores evidence addicts will smoke anywhere and everywhere, not just at certain specific times.

He attacks me personally, berates my evidence, and then posts so called evidence that anyone applying a billionth of an ounce of common sense can say is incorrect.

I know this topic.

If I were given power of life and death over one group, that I could choose, I would not choose Communists... they can be shown their system fails, I would not choose liberals... I have converted a few dozen of them... no... I would choose Libertarians in a heart beat, without remorse, without a second guess, no hesitation, let me push the damned button.

What do you call a libertarian who believes in evil (and thinks we need a strong and active military deployed abroad to prepare for it), knows there is the needs for -some- regulations, and would not legalize drugs? A Conservative.

> Einstein wrote:  In the early part of the 2pth Century

I rest my Case

A woman who can't make a bed made a case?!??