The right not to be offended?

[DrGreenthumb]

It is NOT innocuous, and is far stronger than it was in the sixties, when pot smoking became a cornerstone of the feel-good lifestyle the Left embraces. I've known people who have destroyed their careers if not their lives through pot, and I see no reason to pretend this drug is nothing more than a happy pill with no side affects.

It is not innocuous because you say so? Are you a scientist of some sort? A doctor?

If it is stronger than it was in the 60's that would be great and make it safer, not more dangerous. Higher potency means you smoke less. Hash has always been around and has always been around 60-80% THC. Again all that means is you smoke less hash than you do raw herb. If anything that makes it healthier.

The only reason that the average potency has increased is BECAUSE of the prohibition. In the 60's it was pretty safe to grow your pot outside and just let nature take its course. Now people grow it under artificial light in their basements, so every day of the growing season is sunny, and you can control every aspect of the evironment to have perfect conditions for growing. The plant has not changed. We are using the same genetics that have been on earth since the dawn of time. Blame people like yourself for any increase in pot's potency.

Nothing is harmless, even drinking too much water can kill you, that does not justify making water illegal. There is no justification for pot being illegal either especially when alcohol, a much more dangerous and addictive substance is legal.

I suspect that anyone you know that had their career destroyed with relation to pot was more negatively affected by the prohibition than by the pot itself. For every person that pot has a negative effect on there are probably 10,000 that have had negative effects from alcohol.

The higher you drive up the price of weed the more people will grow it, your drug war is a failure, and always will be. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Is that the usual conservative policy? Find out what is not working and do more of it?

You complain about drugs being dangerous and then put in policies that do nothing but make them more dangerous. Is it because you want using pot to be as dangerous as possible to deter people from doing something you don't like them doing? Kind of like preaching abstinence when it comes to sex, and opposing education about condoms and how they can help prevent STD's? I think the right WANTS using drugs to be as dangerous as possible, just like they WANT people who have pre-marital sex to get STD's. Then they can say "See what happens when you sin?"

[Michael Bluth]

It is a civil liberty to do what I want with MY OWN BODY. That means I should be able to choose not to wear my seatbelt, or motorcycle helmet , eat fatty food, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or pot, and alter my consiousness however the hell I choose to. Unless I violate the rights of another citizen it is none of the state's or anyone else's business what I do with MY OWN BODY.

Last election I donated money to the NDP, I worked the phones, went door to door, called radio talk shows, and wrote LTE's. I joined the constituency association, and got elected to the executive. I attended the debates and asked questions that I knew would make the conservative candidate look foolish. I picked up and drove voters to the polls. I told every pot smoker I know that the NDP were "our party" and distributed quotes from members of all three parties that showed how backwards thinking the cons are when it comes to cannabis. Also I did not only campaign for the NDP in my own riding, I made day trips to other ridings where I went door to door handing out pamphlets and putting them on car windshields. The conservative position on Cannabis is definitely the minority position in Canada. Almost every person I talked to agreed that a crackdown on Cannabis was a huge waste of taxpayer's money and police resources that could be better spent elsewhere. Very few people believe the police/government propaganda about Cannabis anymore, because almost everyone has used it at some point in their life or at least knows someone who uses it, and is otherwise a law abiding, taxpaying citizen.

It makes me very angry that my government, that is supposed to work for me, uses the taxes I pay them to hunt down and cage people for anything Cannabis related.

Your first point is interesting. Fine if it is your own body. However, do you accept that other's should not be forced to subsidize your lifestyle choices? Why should other citizens be forced to pay for your health care when the ravages of eating fatty foods, smoking cigarettes, boozing etc. are taken into account?

Congratulations on being involved in the electoral process. Very few people are.

I believe that decriminalization is a half-measure for pot. Legalize it or leave it alone. I would prefer legalization. I don't like vast sums going into the hands of the Hells Angel's or whoever else controls the trade where you live. I don't like the level of enforcement being up to the government of the day.

That being said, a legal distribution system could help pay for education programs and fund health programs. There are health effects for long-term use. Programs to deal with those could be paid for from the taxes generated by the legal distribution and sale of marijuana. It should not be expected as part of the right to smoke pot that you have the right to have other people pay for the long term effects.

[Argus]

I'm a pot smoker, remember? We are way too relaxed and at peace with ourselves to ever get angry enough to act out aggressively. We leave that kind of behavior to alcoholics and conservatives.

People who are at peace with themselves don't find the need to take illegal narcotics on a regular basis. People who need illegal narcotics are life's failures, the flotstam and jetstam of life's losers who can't find their way, who can't find a purpose, who are deeply unhappy and out of synch with the world.

[Argus]

I think maybe we need to look at the idea of justifiable assault being legalized. An idea that may not be popular, but in my opinion has merit. For example if a 30 year old was to have sex with someone's 16 year old daughter, the father should be able to use the defence that his actions were justified when he beats the living hell out of the 30 year old pervert.

When did we decide it was perverted for an adult male to listen to his genetics and lust after a breeding age female? Girls of 16 are physically mature to the point some of them can draw any man's eye and turn his head. It's not perverted to lust after one. Remember that in our history most 16 year olds would be married - usually to older men who had the resources to look after them and the expected family.

The reason we, as a society frown upon such things now, at least, if acted upon, is the assumption that the adult male is only interested in sexually using the girl, and nothing more, that he has no other feelings for her and has no intention of marriage or a life together. In other words, it's not what he wants to do to her that we judge as wrong, but the lopsided nature of any relationship, which is prone to exploitation.

[Argus]

Actually I AM advocating the use of violence, when violence is justified. Any old shitbag pervert tries to put the moves on one of my daughters, and he better damn well expect a violent reaction from me. If I have to go to jail for protecting my child then so be it. If that offends anyone too bad, you don't have the right not to be offended.

You righties are always saying how the justice system never punishes anyone anymore so why be afraid to kick a pedophile's ass? I'm not.

Here's a scenario for you, I have no criminal record, I find out a 30 year old man has had sexual relations with my 16 year old daughter. I go over to his house kick down the door and proceed to kick his teeth in. The cops pick me up(probably pat me on the back) and make me sign a promise to appear in court. The judge hears my story, after numerous remands, so probably about 2 years later. He sentences me to probabtion, house arrest, or maybe at most a couple of months in jail. I think the message has already been sent to other perverts not to touch my children. Was it worth it? damn rights it was.

Of course, if we simply amended the law as the Conservatives want then you wouldn't have to go through all that - which by the way, will include tens of thousands in legal fees - and the guy could simply be arrested.

Oh, and what if the 30 year old kicks your ass and puts you in the hospital? Then goes and screws your daughter again?

[Argus]

So you base your vote on the one issue of marijuana?

When you're a drug addict, nothing else in the world matters.

[Argus]

yeah, and going after dealers has proven so effective in the past!

It can be extremely effective if you have the right laws. We, of course, do not. The courts are very protective towards drug dealers. A court even issued a decision saying police weren't allowed to tape drug buys because that offended the dealers' civil rights to privacy.

On top of that we have very weak laws which are very weakly enforced. If you could take a drug dealer off the street immediately by simply proving he sold drugs - ie, with a tape recording or video tape, there would be virtually no drug dealers.

Unfortunately, what happens here is the guy is bailed out within hours, and goes right back to selling dope. His trial is postponed for eighteen months. Then he cuts a deal and get a minimal sentence, which he is paroled from after serving 1/3 of the time. He's right back on the street selling dope again in a very short time.

[DrGreenthumb]

"Illegal narcotic" is a construct. It is made up. It is a plant, and a very useful one. I consider it a meditation aid, A herbal relaxant. You are too hung up on the legal status, which has no bearing on the actual effects of the herb. I think you must need another dose of legal alcohol, its okay the government says its a "food" not a "drug".

I bet you actually believe that too don't you argus? Nothing wrong with a glass of wine over dinner is there? As long as you stay away from "drugs" right?

"People who need illegal narcotics are life's failures, the flotstam and jetstam of life's losers who can't find their way, who can't find a purpose, who are deeply unhappy and out of synch with the world."-Argus

Do people who take a glass of wine "NEED" it? What makes you think people who WANT to use Cannabis do so because they "NEED" to? Isn't it possible that we just choose to because we "enjoy" it?

It seems to me that conservatives like you are the ones who are deeply unhappy and out of synch with the world. I'm always quite happy and at peace with the world around me. Just because I don't choose the same "purpose" for my life as you would choose does not mean I don't have one. My purpose is to lead a happy life and spend as much time as I can having fun with the people I love. I have been very successful in life. I am self employed, which leaves me plenty of time to do that. I have earned plenty of money and paid taxes on all of it. I own a 5 bedroom house on 6 acres of land, I own a 2007 minivan and a classic chevy half ton. In my living room I have a 54 inch TV and about 5000 dollars worth of stereo equipment. Eveything I own is fully paid for by money I earned as a private contractor. I have enough money in the bank that I could retire right now at the age of 34, especially if I sold off all my equipment which is also 100% paid off. I certainly don't feel like a loser. I started my first business when I was 14, and by the time I was 21 I was making more than 100, 000 a year.

My wife smokes pot too, and she earns over 60 grand per year, yeah we're really life's flotsam, total losers.

[M.Dancer]

There are just so many more important things to do than for the House to waste their time on decriminalizing weed. Not like there is a shortage or it's hard to get and i see nor serious need to do anting about it one way or another.

The one issue surrounding weed that I would see pursued are grow ops. These represnt a danger to the communities where they exist, both from the criminals who operate them and from the fire dangers that seem to accompany them.

I would like to see the gov't make operating a grow op a very expensive and dangerous proposition.

[DrGreenthumb]

You are really screwed up Argus, an adult male is a predator if he goes after a 14 y.o. but its natural for an adult to go after a 16 y. o? Here we have a guy who thinks sleeping with 16 year old children is ok but an adult smoking a joint is a criminal? And you have the nerve to accuse the left of being morally bankrupt? A 16 year old is a child, even if their body is maturing, they are not emotionally mature, in fact they probably are not even finished going through puberty. So I'm guessing you are one of those old letch's that ogles high school girls walking home from school, that being "natural" and all?

Yeesh, It is not natural to lust after children Argus, only men who can not handle a mature woman would think it is.

[Argus]

"Illegal narcotic" is a construct. It is made up. It is a plant, and a very useful one. I consider it a meditation aid, A herbal relaxant. You are too hung up on the legal status, which has no bearing on the actual effects of the herb. I think you must need another dose of legal alcohol, its okay the government says its a "food" not a "drug".

Legal or illegal is irelevent to your claim. People who feel the need to get drunk constantly can be summarized in the same way as drug users. However, you have to go that extra mile to be a an illgal drug user. Booze is freely and legally available everywhere and encouraged by the media. But you REALLY have to want to get stoned a lot to be a drug addict.

"People who need illegal narcotics are life's failures, the flotstam and jetstam of life's losers who can't find their way, who can't find a purpose, who are deeply unhappy and out of synch with the world."-Argus

Do people who take a glass of wine "NEED" it? What makes you think people who WANT to use Cannabis do so because they "NEED" to? Isn't it possible that we just choose to because we "enjoy" it?

If you need alcohol or drugs to enjoy yourself then you're a failure. If you need it so much you're willing to pay premium prices and break the law then you're an even bigger failure.

It seems to me that conservatives like you are the ones who are deeply unhappy and out of synch with the world. I'm always quite happy and at peace with the world around me.

Bullshit. There are serious problems with you as a human being or you wouldn't be a pot head, and a pot head who's so desperate he's apparently dedicated much of his life to trying to legalize his illegal addiction.

I have been very successful in life.

Yes, almost everyone on the internet is rich. No one lives alone in their parents basement because they can't get a better job than waiting on tables.

Eveything I own is fully paid for by money I earned as a private contractor.

Good for you. Yet despite your apparent economic success you can't get by without fuzzing your mind on drugs. There really is no getting around that. If you were so all fired happy in your life you wouldn't need to get high all the time. No argument you can make will ever counter that.

And, btw, I've known a number of heavy pot smokers and every one had serious psychological issues they were turning to pot to hide from. I've seen a number of heavy pot smokers at work, too. I would NEVER hire one, and never employ one. They vary in their reliability, but overall, are extremely sub-par.

[AngusThermopyle]

People who need illegal narcotics are life's failures, the flotstam and jetstam of life's losers who can't find their way, who can't find a purpose, who are deeply unhappy and out of synch with the world.

What a load of bull. It has been shown numerous times that the use of stimulants is natural in living organism that have developed a threshold mental functionality. Birds will fly for miles to seek out fermenting fruit. Cattle likewise will seek out the ole loco weed. Marijuana seeds have been found in cave dwellings. Before making such opinionated statements do a little more research instead of basing your "facts" upon watching Reefer Madness.

[Argus]

You are really screwed up Argus, an adult male is a predator if he goes after a 14 y.o. but its natural for an adult to go after a 16 y. o?

Maybe if you wave aside the clouds of smoke in front of your monitor you'd be able to read more clearly. I didn't say anything about predators. I also didn't say that we, as a society, should condone adults going after 16 year olds. There are nuances to this argument your pot-addled mind is apparently incapable of grasping.

It is a natural thing for a normal male to look at a breeding age female and want to breed with her. That's simple genetics, instincts, whatever you want to call it. A guy looking at a lovely, physically mature female is not a pervert any more than a guy looking at a hot car is sick for wanting to drive it.

Here we have a guy who thinks sleeping with 16 year old children is ok but an adult smoking a joint is a criminal?

I don't think you really have the ability to handle one topic at a time, much less mix the two together.

It is perfectly normal to want to sleep with an attractive female. The reason we as a society frown upon it in the case of younger females is because in many cases such a relationship is exploitive and harmful to the younger member of society. That isn't always the case, of course, but it depends on the personalities involved.

And you have the nerve to accuse the left of being morally bankrupt?

I don't believe I've ever said that: intellectually bankrupt, maybe.

A 16 year old is a child, even if their body is maturing, they are not emotionally mature, in fact they probably are not even finished going through puberty.

Actually, a 16 year old's body is, for the most part, mature. That is why men find them attractive. When Tracy Lords appeared in Penthouse magazine at 15 nobody though twice about her age (given as 22) because nobody could tell the difference.

So I'm guessing you are one of those old letch's that ogles high school girls walking home from school, that being "natural" and all?

Depends on the girl :-P And you don't know how old I am, either.

Yeesh, It is not natural to lust after children Argus, only men who can not handle a mature woman would think it is.

Not at all. It is perfectly natural to lust after physically mature bodies. Now if you seriously contemplated a relationship with someone who was much less emotionally mature than you - except in exceptional circumstances, then I'd agree that this was unhealthy behaviour on your part. Edited December 21, 2007 by Argus

[Argus]

What a load of bull. It has been shown numerous times that the use of stimulants is natural in living organism that have developed a threshold mental functionality. Birds will fly for miles to seek out fermenting fruit. Cattle likewise will seek out the ole loco weed. Marijuana seeds have been found in cave dwellings. Before making such opinionated statements do a little more research instead of basing your "facts" upon watching Reefer Madness.

It's natural to shit in the street too, but once one passes a certain level of civilization it's no longer acceptable behaviour. Don't try to excuse being a drug addict by saying animals do it.

[DrGreenthumb]

There are just so many more important things to do than for the House to waste their time on decriminalizing weed. Not like there is a shortage or it's hard to get and i see nor serious need to do anting about it one way or another.

The one issue surrounding weed that I would see pursued are grow ops. These represnt a danger to the communities where they exist, both from the criminals who operate them and from the fire dangers that seem to accompany them.

I would like to see the gov't make operating a grow op a very expensive and dangerous proposition.

Typical of a conservative to say something like this, totally ignoring the root of the problem. Allow me to help you special needs types figure it out. First of all you are assuming that growing pot is dangerous with no evidence to back up that assumption. People grow orchids and tomatoes indoors, yet I have never heard of a fire resulting from that activity. In fact there have been very few fires caused by indoor pot farms, far more fires are caused by toasters, and kitchen stoves than by grow lights. Ask yourself why there is danger of electrical fire at all? Do you think just maybe that if people could call an electrician to do their wiring it might prevent the danger? Do you think people would bypass the meter if they weren't worried about being detected by a spike in hydro usage? Do you think people would even waste the money on hydro if they could use the sun's rays for free? Do you think it would be profitable to buy an expensive house and turn it into a greenhouse if anyone who wanted to smoke pot could produce enough in their front flowerbed over the summer to last them all year?

No I don't think conservatives think at all.

You would like the government to make growing pot a "dangerous proposition". Is that slip an admission that there is nothing dangerous about growing plants? Or was I right that conservatives would like to make anything they consider "sinful" as dangerous as possible so they can use that danger as a deterrent to behavior that they have moral objection to?

Thousands of Canadians being unnecessarily saddled with criminal records every year is not a serious problem?? Give your head a shake.

[AngusThermopyle]

Don't try to excuse being a drug addict by saying animals do it.

My my, you do make a lot of assumptions don't you. Did I ever say I'm a drug addict? I just don't happen to like unfounded accusations. Actually, some very prominent people have and do use Marijuana.

[Argus]

My my, you do make a lot of assumptions don't you. Did I ever say I'm a drug addict? I just don't happen to like unfounded accusations. Actually, some very prominent people have and do use Marijuana.

Yes, and we had a prime minister who talked to his dead mother. It's certainly possible to be a screwball and still function in society. The odds, however, are against it.

[M.Dancer]

First of all you are assuming that growing pot is dangerous with no evidence to back up that assumption.

Surely you are living under a rock.....so typical of you "left" types to be so...what? clueless?

This is what I call the romatiszation of the weed. Clearly this is another in a string of fools who wander in here to champion their pet cause which is getting balsted. No amount of evidence will convince them, because in their drug addled minds, the cause is always "da man"...

Grow-ops use more than 93 kw/h of electricity per day, three times normal consumption. And they are 24 times more likely to catch fire than ordinary houses.

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sto...02-825636a66bf7

Grow-op fire engulfs Burlington house

Nov 24, 2007 07:44 AM

Josh Wingrove

Staff Reporter

One person was taken to hospital and two others arrested after a Burlington grow-op caught fire early Friday

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/279554

Rimbey house fire exposes grow op

Nov 21 2007

By JACK WILSON

Advocate staff

Rimbey firefighters got more than they bargained for while fighting a house fire on Sunday.

After dousing a fire at a rural residence about 1.5 km north of Hwy 53, the firefighters conducted a cursory examination of damage and discovered a hydroponic marijuana grow operation in the badly damaged structure.

http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/portals-cod...7922&more=0

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTV...hub=TorontoHome

There is plenty of evidence for people whose heads are clouded in smoke.

Allow me to help you special needs types figure it out.

No I don't think conservatives think at all.

You really don't wnat to post here much longer , do you?

[CandianWatcher]

Growing pot is not dangerous? Man you have been smoking too much of what your growing. Tell the citizens who live next to a grow up that it is not dangerous, when drug dealers, users, or bad people burst into their home and scare the crap out of them, just because they got the wrong house.

Tell the people in the neighborhood that have to live with the drive by shootings that growing pot is not dangerous.

Yes, right tell me living next to a grow op is not dangerous, tell the land lord that has his house condemned because it housed a grow op that it is not dangerous.

Now back to the original topic of this thread, Free speech comes with responsibilities, you cannot just say anything you want under the guise of free speech. You have to be responsible for your words, just like your actions. If you don't like me, say so in plain English, If you don't like me there is no reason to add on racial expletives to get the point across. That is what free speech is. The right to say what you chose in a responsible manner.

Too many times too many forget that part of free speech. Responsibility.

[Wild Bill]

Growing pot is not dangerous? Man you have been smoking too much of what your growing. Tell the citizens who live next to a grow up that it is not dangerous, when drug dealers, users, or bad people burst into their home and scare the crap out of them, just because they got the wrong house.

Tell the people in the neighborhood that have to live with the drive by shootings that growing pot is not dangerous.

Yes, right tell me living next to a grow op is not dangerous, tell the land lord that has his house condemned because it housed a grow op that it is not dangerous.

My God, how many times must it be said before some folks get it? NONE of your points about danger have to do with growing pot! ALL of them have to do with the HUGE PROFIT that comes from pot being illegal!

It's Prohibition all over again! When they repealed Prohibition all the tommygun shootings stopped overnight. People fought over the money, not the booze in itself.

I am seriously starting to believe that many of the people against legalization are on the take to drug lords to maintain their obscene profits. Why not? It's historical fact that Al Capone gave money to politicians for exactly that purpose.

I'm sick of paying taxes for a futile war on drugs. I don't believe that pushers will try to get my kids hooked if there's no money it it for them. And I don't believe we've ever had more than token successes anyway. The vast majority of people who use marijuana and cocaine never develop an addiction. As for those who do, these types of personalities are hell bent to get screwed up on something! If not grass, then coke, or booze, or toad-licking or whatever.

Let them go to hell their own way! If drugs were legal and cheap there would be no crime involved. Most of the problems would immediately cease. If we absolutely had to get involved in someone's right to screw themselves up it's a certainty that rehab would be FAR cheaper than what we waste in the "War on Drugs!" today!

And make that rehab money voluntary and not from taxes! Don't take it from me! My kids are too hungry for me to support some social conservative, Stockwell Day, naive "Barney the Dinosaur" ill-considered bonehead attempt to force their lifestyle views on other citizens!

Prohibition is ALWAYS a cure worse than the disease!

[DrGreenthumb]

I thought I explained this well enough for you slo-posters to understand. There is no evidence that growing pot is dangerous in itself. All your examples only point to problems caused by prohibition. In a legal market the profit motive for turning a residential home into a greenhouse is gone. Large scale production would happen in large warehouses specifically designed for that purpose. When wired properly a grow light is no more likely to cause a fire than any other electrical appliance in your home. If people weren't afraid of getting ratted off to the cops they could call an electrician to do their wiring and it would all be inspected and up to code.

Stop trying to pass off the dangers you CAUSE with your stupid prohibition policy as dangers of growing a plant. A pot plant is no more dangerous than any other houseplant, and is in fact less dangerous than many of the poisonous plants people keep in their homes for ornamental reasons.

The criminal element is involved in the pot trade for one reason and one reason only, and that reason is the huge profits made possible by the prohibition you nutters insist on continueing. When was the last time a group of rum-runners did a drive by in your city? Did they mistakenly break into your house to do a still-rip recently?

If people weren't worried about getting busted everyone would grow their own stash, and one light is enough to grow enough for yourself and a couple of friends. the average light is 1kw, and only the largest of the grow operators would use 93 lights. Most personal growers use 2. One that stays on 18-24 hours per day for growing the plants in a vegetative state and another in a seperate area that stays on 12 hours per day to induce flowering. A small spaceheater uses more electricity in one month than a personal sized pot garden. With all the gro-ops that are estimated to be in Canada, it would be statistically impossible for there to never be a fire at one of them. That is not evedence of an inherent danger. Sensational headlines are just part of the propaganda machine, and not really evidence of a real problem. Even if if the gro-op did not cause the fire, the fact that there was one there is reported.

In the absence of prohibition 90% of cannabis would be grown outdoors anyway making this whole converstation a moot point.

[Michael Bluth]

It seems to me that conservatives like you are the ones who are deeply unhappy and out of synch with the world. I'm always quite happy and at peace with the world around me.

Sure you are. The evidence is your happy and peaceful manner in which you rail against 'conservatives' and those who don't share your views.

I have enough money in the bank that I could retire right now at the age of 34, especially if I sold off all my equipment which is also 100% paid off.

How long do you plan on living? Another 10 or 20 years tops?

Retire at 34. OK my happy pal.

[AngusThermopyle]

WB and GT, excellent posts, well presented and logical.

As I said before I'm opposed to irrational arguements being taken as "Gospel". I'd say that between the two of you the point has been made pretty clearly. I find a huge amount of irrational hysteria surrounds the whole subject of Marijuanna. I really think that its a hell of a lot less harmfull than Alcohol.

As for the addict thing. From what I'm seeing here some people think that smoking a joint makes you an addict. What about having a few drinks on the weekend? Does that make you Alcoholic?

If we could eliminate the unfounded negative ideas about weed we could actually do something positive with it, instead of creating a new industry based on criminalizing normal citizens.

[AngusThermopyle]

Yes, and we had a prime minister who talked to his dead mother. It's certainly possible to be a screwball and still function in society. The odds, however, are against it.

Do you really want to go there? Start listing non substance using prominent people who have been as looney as a Jaybird? I hope not, it could go on for months.

In other words, your post was pretty meaningless and indicative of nothing.

[Michael Bluth]

If we could eliminate the unfounded negative ideas about weed we could actually do something positive with it, instead of creating a new industry based on criminalizing normal citizens.

Why is there no recogniation that there are some well-founded negative issues surrounding pot use?

Pot does lower motivation.

Chronic use leads to mood swings and violent outbursts when the user is deprived.

It impairs the ability to operate a motor vehicle.

Long-term use has an effect on memory.