[b][i]I proved you wrong last time and everyone saw that which is why you shut up and left like the coward you are.[/b][/i] - Cam No Cam, you didn’t. Calling me a coward is just a silly emotional attack, and if you want to test me I’m quite happy to write up a summary of our disagreement, post it to that thread and attention everyone. As it stands, I spoke my mind, shared my argument, and it’s all there, publicised for everyone to see. Refusing to continue arguing with was just refusing to waste my time. It’s also worth pointing out that I even invited everyone to challenge what I said by calling up their local hospital or psych ward. That’s not the hallmark of coward, that’s the hallmark of someone who knows their point is backed up. Furthermore, in that thread, at least a few people commented negatively on you and your arguments. Several people endorsed my response to you btw. Many people could clearly see your arguments were biased and unsubstantiated, hence my comment that everyone could see I proved you wrong. But let’s summarise the disagreement anyway: My position: we should legalise cannabis but it’s not totally harmless. My argument: I point to cases of induced psychosis. Your position: cannabis is totally harmless. Your argument: you disregard any cases of induced psychosis by stating that they’re all in the case of prior mental illness. Quote: [b][i] That only proves they have ALWAYS had issues, they just didn't realize it until the cannabis use.[/b][/i] - Cam First of all, your position doesn’t even make sense. On one hand you concede my point and then on the other you’re contradicting it, as you’re basically saying one always had issues but wasn’t aware of it until they used cannabis. At this point I’m very much doubting you even know what a psychotic episode looks like. I assure you, if someone had prior episodes, they would have known about it. Second of all, your argument is based on assumption. The fact is you have not provided any proof whatsoever that all cases of induced psychosis are strictly in the case of people who had prior mentally health problems, and or would have certainly had mental health problems otherwise. You merely assume. In the former case, I know for a fact that you cannot provide such evidence because there are many cases to the contrary: people who had no prior history of mental illness experienced complications such as psychotic episodes. In the latter case, obviously we do not know if those people would have ever had mental health issues if even they had a dormant susceptibility, if they hadn't of used the drug. It’s quite possible they wouldn't have. Like I said last week, we just don’t know. Hence my position that we should legalise pot but educate people as to such potential risks, such as some people may experience negative complications with the drug. That seems to be a pretty balanced and responsible stance given what we know. So again, I reiterate: that there are risks to using cannabis and it’s blatantly irresponsible to argue otherwise. I am confident that most doctors and nurses (people who actually know what the hell they’re talking about) would agree with me. Only someone who is biased would disregard their cases and experience; doctors and nurses in some cases have been seeing their patients since birth and provide valuable information. It’s also unnecessary to argue otherwise to champion the cause of legalising cannabis. Plenty of legal activities have risks. Big bloody deal. It’s not the end of the campaign.