1. Scientific Pedantry Nothing but math & physics are concrete (and remain true with/without human conception) As someone who studied Philosophy and English Literature, I consider these contexts. Without context there is no meaning. Agreed All fair enough, but do bear in mind that throwing around the term "concrete facts" on an issue where the science is anything but concrete is incredibly oversimplifying. Due to the wildly varying concentration and quality of the substance i...n question, no study is going to reveal much in the way of universally applicable data. I very much doubt you will see any study revealing any flatout positive medical effects of weed other than the existing perscription use as an anti-depressant, but that's just my own conjecture. No less medical than many substances considered medical. I would argue seeking a ‘flatout positive medical’ substance fairly scarce in the world of medicines as it is. All things in moderation after all. Either way certain benefits are quite clear. Pain relief in itself is practically impossible to refute. This in itself makes it a medical substance, as long as it does not outdo this affect through detriment, and studies regularly coin the phrase ‘negligible damage’ to regular (and healthy minded) users, as vague a phrasing as this is it gives a good foundation to work from. The medical value expands further with (again) practically irrefutable muscle relaxant affects with apparent benefit to MS sufferers. The list is diverse, and I would assume you know of THC’s affects on cancer already, but

2. Scientific Pedantry Irrefutably good argument, irrefutable logic (all you require, considering if there ARE good reasons to regulate, and a hoard of negative reason to prohibit..) Saying you have sources or could (if you wanted to) write an irrefuteable essay is somewhat doubtful at best, incredibly narrow minded and naive at worst. I couldn't write you an irrefuteable essay as to why alcohol is good or bad, from both the point of view of health or society. Obvious detrimental effects to health, yet studies show red wine is good for the heart. In terms of society, drunk driving, domestic violence and binge drinking are ever present problems, but they are a minor per centage and the amount of tax generated through alcohol is substantial. Opinions are normally coloured by personal experience, despite all these scientific studies, and though any single personal opinion is valid it is incredibly narrow in scope. Agreed, though the idea that one valid opinion should override another equally valid opinion on a matter of personal freedom that harms no one but the individual at hand, is a much more narrow and selfish scope indeed.

3. To generate any sort of tangible data from these studies, there need to be parameters and control elements and yet there are no such measures in place for society - the whole thing has to be grounded in vague generalities. You can make statistics read more or less whatever you want if you know how to present them - unfortunately the same goes for media presentations of scientific studies. There is some genuinely interesting data to be gleaned for sure, but it's not like all the answers are there on the internet from other peoples study for anyone that cares to look... Not that simple. Entirely and absolutely true. Very much the point. If anyone who is ignorant does the research they realise this issue is complex, and continues to grow in complexity. This is all you need to compare the current legal status to the facts, or rather the lack of them. Yet one thing is for sure, Cannabis is not the awful drug that it was made out to be upon its change in legal status. In fact it has a very rich history within its many ages of legality that has both purposely and inevitably been avoided through the taboo that has grown from its illegality and therefore irrelevancy to everyday life. Awareness therefore is more valuable then anything.

4. Heavy handed? I might say the very same to you, for you have only scratched the surface. You have knowledge only of my general (and hence inevitably reduced) interaction with the general populous(or rather my own ‘sphere of influence’ within it) Come now Luke, I did not think you one to embellish. Violently? With a few words on and a mind opening link? (with an ‘ignore button' hovering millimetres away..) You may find this a distasteful use of social networking, but links ARE for sharing ones interests. Again you must also take into account the context of my obvious bias, which I’ll reiterate I do not and never have hidden. We all come from different angles and I bare mine for all to see and judge which naturally is done harshly; and without shame for my own human limitations I say so be it. Could you link/direct me to some who are anti but take a knowledgeable and rational approach? I’m legitimately interested to hear some intelligent and reasonable counter views. The majority of my experience is that people come to the conclusion of prohibition, which is out of context, has never worked, and has led to worse affects than that of the drug itself. A matter of opinion again, but the alternate opinion is usually draped in prejudice. Far too many times have I heard people comment on how they don’t want people smoking cannabis or being stoned freely because ‘they don’t like it’. That or general hysterical fears of drug abuse gone rife, people driving stoned, working stoned, always being stoned. No grounding in reality whatsoever. While you are right that there are people unreasonably prejudiced against the mere notion of drugs due to kneejerk media conditioning, that is not a free pass to act as irresponsibly heavy handed in the name of your cause. You come across just as prejudiced FOR the cause as the peope prejudiced against whom you so violently try to "eduucate" and really - is that any better? There are people who understand the ins and outs of drugs who are still legitimately against them, be it for different sociological views to you or just flatout less tolerance for substance abuse, even those that are legal. There are valid arguments for that camp of thinking, though I don't really agree with them either - either end of the spectrum results in strong over simplification.

5. It is if when questioned the complexities are ignored and answers are given in black and white. I’ve never done this, many people who HAVE asked have regretted it because I’ve given them far too much to think on with no ‘concrete’ answers. Facebook is dealing with the crowds at large, and to engage with this diversity one must stay vague and get straight to their own individual point. I do exactly that, and with that in mind I’ve also never hidden my own bias. It’s painfully obvious, and also so important for people to realise my angle is from experience. Both for the positive and negative attributes that gives to my own thoughts. You always tend to address your Facebook statuses or links on this as condemnation against staunchly right wing prejudiced folk, tarring a whole diverse range of opinions and culture with the most extreme and unreasonable opinions... Yet seem unaware that you only ever pick the most positive points out about your causes and conveniently gloss over negatives or valid counter points other folk care to raise. Harmless idealism, maybe. But when you are so violently poised against the counter culture, highly defensive and unwilling to acknowledge the negative... isn't that practically propaganda?

6. As long as you’re aware you are giving me, and ‘the masses’ less credit than due. As I have continued to point out, my biases are there on the table for all to see. I am also far more partial to rational discussion than debate, (debate has a habit of polarizing people and little else, and as we have both stated this is a vastly grey area), and the times I have been engaged in discussion I have never painted anything but a complex and truthful picture, expanding upon the mere keyhole image that a mere link or status may provide. Just so long as you're aware that what you are doing is proliferating your own biased opinion in order to sway people towards your cause rather than some selfless crusade to inform the ignorant masses, I have absolutely no problem with your passion or even your tone. It's the fact that you try to remain entirely objective, falling back on stats, links or 'concrete facts' that are anything but infallible that bothers me. The implication that any self study will lead people to draw the same conclusions as you is very presumptuous, unless you are intentionally only linking loaded studies/data. The links are generally eye openers, and often mediated articles. Their bias in itself is obvious. The importance is not the facts but the ideals, as essentially the issue is the questionable policy approach. It will not be done to everyday people like myself to assess the evidence and revise any political, policies after all. With any luck our Government would ask those such as the scientists and the sociologists.

7. Get back to me when I’ve pushed anything but a status out, seriously. A minor nuisance to those it bugs at most, but honestly I cannot point out the ignore button enough. Facebook is most apt because of this very feature. Diversity is obvious and goes without saying. I have a few conservative friends, and many of them are on the fence or actively pro the cannabis issue. Liberal Vs Conservatism are just really an easy way to divide peoples mindsets on individual freedom. The conservative attitude can be quite oppressive, closed minded and at times even bigoted. Not always, and not in all conservatives.. Yet that association is there, and not just from my individual perspective. You are wholly entitled to your opinions, and your passion is admirable, but your drive to push them on other people seems almost as if you believe yours is the only acceptable viewpoint... which is something you are highly critical of conservative, anti drug types... and you've gotta be informed enough to know that's not the reality of the situation, right? As I've said the whole time, the debates you raise are anything but black and white. Accepting only one viewpoint and accusing all others of being less informed only means your opinions are hold to more scrutiny and the inevitable holes are ultimately found... No one opinion is universally right or true for 'the people', that's why communism failed despite being perfect on paper. I’ve never called anyone less informed but those that make sweeping judgements themselves, just as you accuse me of doing so. In that we’re essentially agreed. I know. I’m a Perspectivist. That said it’s important to specify that not all perspectives are equally valid.

8. And Philosophy actually, morality is intrinsically involved when people are criminalized for recreational drug taking.. Something already prevalent in society. Specifically picking one drug (and contextually one that is not any more harmful than tobacco or alcohol) and a specific demographic (historically this was a corrupt policy to deal with immigrants in America, and a decision that was based on a study that concluded against prohibition This is a complex issue of both science and sociology with no one definite answer, raising people's awareness to the complexity of it all unfortunately does little to simplify it.I'll stop ranting at you now, but basically I just wondered if you realised quite how much your bias plays into your attempt to inform other people on the issue. Bias is not an inherently negative thing, so don't take that as a criticism, but it is something to really think about as someone so militant about a single cause. Passion clouds rationale.See more10 hours ago · Like I’m pretty sure you got your answer by now from my constant reiteration of my own bias for all to see. I’m certain with all the whys and wherefores filled in my approach seems less militant now you know it isn’t clouded by passion leading to ignorance and zealotry.. Provocative? Certainly ;)