"Here's wher you can store your weed"
- Thread starter Ferret
- Start date
Technicaly, it hs never been proven that tobacco causes cancer either - I've done the research and there still is no definitive proof. Now, it is obvious that many smokers get cancer and many carcinogens have been found in cigarette smoke. Well, recent studies have shown that marijuana has FIVE TIMES the carcinogens in them.Originally posted by whuppinboy
As far as i'm aware, it's never been proven that pot causes cancer. it's been stated there's a likelihood that it could. it does cause short term memory loss in some people though (myself included).
Now, I only smoke about a pack a day. Imagine a smoker like me switching to pot. Even if they only smoke half a pack it's still like smoking 50 cigarettes!
-Ferret
"Of course, that may still not cause cancer..."
W
whuppinboy
Guest
i'm agree with you Ferrett, pot does have more carcinogens than cigarettes but yet, cigarette smokers die in heavily greater numbers than pot smokers. Or at least they're publicized more often than pot smokers are. plus it all depends on a person's metabolism, why do some people live to 80 some years and never have any complications from smoking even though they've smoked for 65 of those 80 years (both my grandparents- who are now dead due to natural causes)? the government says this, we say that, it all gets twisted and turned and bent and shuffled.
and that 50 cigarettes comparison to pot is ludicrous reality wise. i've smoked an ounce of weed in one sitting, wasted about 9/10ths of it cuz you can only get so high no matter how much you smoke. now, smoke 50 cigarettes in one sitting and you're risking your life, that's too much and you're risking nicotine poisoning. anyhoo, it's pointless debate, we can back and forth until we're blue in the face and still nothing will have changed.
i would love to make everyone in this world happy, it can't be done. like you pointed out we live in a democracy, where every action brings about a reaction that is both positive and negative depending on your point of view.
in my opinion, this country is too far gone to try and turn anything around when it concerns illegal drugs and alcohol and cigarettes. the money has been made, is still being made and will always be made. the minority that wants to see change is too small and voiceless to make any difference.
i neither have all the answers, nor would i want to. but it's sure fun trying
and that 50 cigarettes comparison to pot is ludicrous reality wise. i've smoked an ounce of weed in one sitting, wasted about 9/10ths of it cuz you can only get so high no matter how much you smoke. now, smoke 50 cigarettes in one sitting and you're risking your life, that's too much and you're risking nicotine poisoning. anyhoo, it's pointless debate, we can back and forth until we're blue in the face and still nothing will have changed.
i would love to make everyone in this world happy, it can't be done. like you pointed out we live in a democracy, where every action brings about a reaction that is both positive and negative depending on your point of view.
in my opinion, this country is too far gone to try and turn anything around when it concerns illegal drugs and alcohol and cigarettes. the money has been made, is still being made and will always be made. the minority that wants to see change is too small and voiceless to make any difference.
i neither have all the answers, nor would i want to. but it's sure fun trying
M
Mongoose Man
Guest
I have in the past smoked marijuana 7 times, to some this may seem a large number, to others it may seem trivial. At this time in my life I do not do marijuana or any other drugs but I do not see anything wrong with using marijuana so long that it is used responisbly.
There are many misconceptions about marijuana that are exagerated to a far more than reasonable degree by anti-drug groups. One of these is the commercials that depic marijuana users. I don't know how many of you have seen these but one shows two teenage boys who are "high" sitting in a room that looks like an office and one boy picks up a gun from the desk and shoots his friend, killing him. These "public service" announcements are largely biased and not factual. It is a known fact that marijuana impairs one's ability to reason and slows down one's reflexes. It also is shown to cause users to become calm, laid back, and very relaxed. The people portrayed in these TV ads are always erratic and extremly out of control. Under no dosage of marijuana is a user going to "forget" that a gun can shoot someone and if the shooter did not know the gun was loaded then it is just as likely that they would have done it even if they were completly sober.
Some of you may wonder what I mean by "responsible marijuana use" so I will explain. I think that marijuana should be legalized and put under the same restraints put on alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana should be legal to buy and grow for people over the age of 18. If these people are considered responsible enough to choose the leaders of the country we should be able to trust them enough not to drive around while under the influence. Sadly though the world is by far not a perfect place and substance abuse will always exist whether it be from alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs, therefore there must be restrictions on the use of marijuana. Obviously driving and operating heavy machinery would not be acceptable while under the influence of marijuana, it would not be considered responsible to be under the influence while at work and it would be completly justifiable to terminate the employment of anyone who show up to work "stoned" just as it is to fire workers who show up drunk. Responsible use of marijuana includes using it in a controled environment, for example, the house of yourself or a friend. Many find it advisable to put dangerous things such as car keys in places that are "out of the way" or not easily accesable to one who is under the influence of marijuana. I find nothing dangerous about marijuana use in controled environments.
For anyone who is interested in exactly what marijuana does to a user a good link is provided.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/uk_lords_report/IndexOfReport.shtml
There are many misconceptions about marijuana that are exagerated to a far more than reasonable degree by anti-drug groups. One of these is the commercials that depic marijuana users. I don't know how many of you have seen these but one shows two teenage boys who are "high" sitting in a room that looks like an office and one boy picks up a gun from the desk and shoots his friend, killing him. These "public service" announcements are largely biased and not factual. It is a known fact that marijuana impairs one's ability to reason and slows down one's reflexes. It also is shown to cause users to become calm, laid back, and very relaxed. The people portrayed in these TV ads are always erratic and extremly out of control. Under no dosage of marijuana is a user going to "forget" that a gun can shoot someone and if the shooter did not know the gun was loaded then it is just as likely that they would have done it even if they were completly sober.
Some of you may wonder what I mean by "responsible marijuana use" so I will explain. I think that marijuana should be legalized and put under the same restraints put on alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana should be legal to buy and grow for people over the age of 18. If these people are considered responsible enough to choose the leaders of the country we should be able to trust them enough not to drive around while under the influence. Sadly though the world is by far not a perfect place and substance abuse will always exist whether it be from alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs, therefore there must be restrictions on the use of marijuana. Obviously driving and operating heavy machinery would not be acceptable while under the influence of marijuana, it would not be considered responsible to be under the influence while at work and it would be completly justifiable to terminate the employment of anyone who show up to work "stoned" just as it is to fire workers who show up drunk. Responsible use of marijuana includes using it in a controled environment, for example, the house of yourself or a friend. Many find it advisable to put dangerous things such as car keys in places that are "out of the way" or not easily accesable to one who is under the influence of marijuana. I find nothing dangerous about marijuana use in controled environments.
For anyone who is interested in exactly what marijuana does to a user a good link is provided.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/uk_lords_report/IndexOfReport.shtml
N
Nightstalkers
Guest
I still don't think its right that they shove the stuff up their bunghole to smuggle through customs...
thats just sickening
thats just sickening
T
train
Guest
NS - Where do you think the Carcinogens come from?...
R
Rooser
Guest
I really grow tired of people who have it in their heads that there is something inherently wrong with drugs. They only recreate body chemistries that your body was capable of acheiving anyway. Anybody who's ever had an adrenaline rush should understand this.
I've fasted a few times, and once it got me to trip out.
If you still don't believe me, consider the orgasm, (Provided you're not to young and/or proud to masturbate). That's certainly an altered state of being, and no drugs are required. Chuck Palhaniuk described nymphomania as a drug addiction where your crotch was a permanent stash waiting to be cashed.
Or you could consider Begbie from Trainspotting. Okay, so technically he drank a lot too, but didn't Renton say something to the effect of Begbie being addicted to "sensation": Screaming, throwing, punching, fighting and the like? A rush from such activities does not sound too unlike a "high" to me.
If you stop drinking water you'll go through withdrawl just like if you kicked an addiction. What I just said might sound extreme, but consider that somewhere in between "water" and "drugs" are aphrodisiacs, (like shrimp), natural stimulants, (apples, for example), and anti-depressants, (Anything with vitamin D in it).
If you expect chaos from the legalization of drugs, then I wonder if you've been living in a cave. Oink happens. Jealous boyfriends will still shoot their cheating girlfriends, insecure men will still beat their wives. Bored, apathetic people will continue to be lazy. People don't get killed by drunk drivers, they get killed by people who have a disposition towards a particular mental state.
Obviously an excess of drugs is bad, but I imagine the mother of the drowned three-year old will tell you that an excess of water bad too.
There are those of us who can control ourselves, and there are those of us who can't. Putting drugs on a pedestal separate from other consumptives just gives the irresponsible an excuse for their destructive actions.
"Gee, honey, gimme a break; I was DRUNK." As if it were somehow the alcohol's fault.
If a fat person blamed food - on account of its irresitable tastiness - for their weight problem, you probably wouldn't take them seriosuly, so stop turning drugs into a scapegoat.
We're all addicted to the drug of "normal." Why do you think people are so resistant to change? Change = Withdrawal from the comfortable constancy of our current lifestyles.
Drawing subjective lines between which mental states are healthy and which are not is just as oppressive as deeming which ways of thinking or expressing yourself are healthy and which ways are not.
I've fasted a few times, and once it got me to trip out.
If you still don't believe me, consider the orgasm, (Provided you're not to young and/or proud to masturbate). That's certainly an altered state of being, and no drugs are required. Chuck Palhaniuk described nymphomania as a drug addiction where your crotch was a permanent stash waiting to be cashed.
Or you could consider Begbie from Trainspotting. Okay, so technically he drank a lot too, but didn't Renton say something to the effect of Begbie being addicted to "sensation": Screaming, throwing, punching, fighting and the like? A rush from such activities does not sound too unlike a "high" to me.
If you stop drinking water you'll go through withdrawl just like if you kicked an addiction. What I just said might sound extreme, but consider that somewhere in between "water" and "drugs" are aphrodisiacs, (like shrimp), natural stimulants, (apples, for example), and anti-depressants, (Anything with vitamin D in it).
If you expect chaos from the legalization of drugs, then I wonder if you've been living in a cave. Oink happens. Jealous boyfriends will still shoot their cheating girlfriends, insecure men will still beat their wives. Bored, apathetic people will continue to be lazy. People don't get killed by drunk drivers, they get killed by people who have a disposition towards a particular mental state.
Obviously an excess of drugs is bad, but I imagine the mother of the drowned three-year old will tell you that an excess of water bad too.
There are those of us who can control ourselves, and there are those of us who can't. Putting drugs on a pedestal separate from other consumptives just gives the irresponsible an excuse for their destructive actions.
"Gee, honey, gimme a break; I was DRUNK." As if it were somehow the alcohol's fault.
If a fat person blamed food - on account of its irresitable tastiness - for their weight problem, you probably wouldn't take them seriosuly, so stop turning drugs into a scapegoat.
We're all addicted to the drug of "normal." Why do you think people are so resistant to change? Change = Withdrawal from the comfortable constancy of our current lifestyles.
Drawing subjective lines between which mental states are healthy and which are not is just as oppressive as deeming which ways of thinking or expressing yourself are healthy and which ways are not.
N
Nightstalkers
Guest
We have never been divided by the trouble of drugs and other such idealisms that plague the society today. I myself am not troubled by the fact that thousands of people get off on the mirad chemicals that are found on this planet.
Having dated three women at the same time (Yes, they knew about each other) that were as I knew at the time all lesbians, I have taken the studies of different techniques and aphrodesiacs that both stimulate the minds and body. Some would be most difficult to procure in this country so you could say that they are illegal in some way. The point of fact is that I have known what chemical stimulation, whether it be induced through foreign chemicals or not, I have not found a safe or better way than what is out on the market today. What is the difference between a foursome and a blunt? the blunt will set you back about $20 and the three women will take you three months, a lifetime of bonding, and around $1700 in date fees...
E
EricBess
Guest
I really grow tired of people who have it in their heads that everyone in this entire world (or at least country) is a responsible adult. Anyone who's ever had a child should understand this.
It has been mentioned here that pot has been shown to be non-addictive and I would refute that. It has been shown that there is no physical addition, but there is certainly an emotional one.
The bottom line is that there are a lot of substances in this world and they can all be used for some good purpose (getting high is not such a purposes, but that's an argument for another day). And they call all be used very wrongly also.
Why to doctors regulate prescription drugs? Because they are very useful if taken properly, but very dangerous if not. And in many cases, it's not just the abuser that is harmed. Antibiotics used to be prescribed a lot more, but it's been learned that bacteria is mutating and a lot of strains of bacteria are immune to many forms of antibiotics. And that's what's happened with them regulated.
At any rate, that's getting off subject. We were talking about dispositions to certain behavior. Well, while I don't discount the responsibility of the parent, there are a lot of influences on children growing up now days. In fact, I emphasize the responsibility of the parent to instill in their children proper values and an ability to judge for themselves.
However, the fact remains that children are naturally curious and experimental. Now, I'm sure plenty of people will refute what I am about to say with, "...but, I..." - many children never quite recover from experimentation with drugs. And if you, in your own mind, feel you can occasionally take drugs and keep it under control, then you have to live with that decision.
So, the next argument is that this happens anyway and making it legal will just make it easier to regulate? Does anyone here deny that nicotine is a drug? Look at cigarettes and how damaging they are, yet they are rampant. There have been improvements, but there is still plenty of advertising for cigarrettes and alcohol that is directed at young people. Why? Because the cigarrette and alcohol industries know that responsibile adults almost never just simply decide to start smoking or drinking for the first time. Instead, they start young and by the time they are "responsible" adults, they are already used to such activities.
And I assure you, legalizing drugs would be the first step. The next would be lobbyist for "free speach" saying they should be able to have whatever ads they want. So it would happen.
It has been mentioned here that pot has been shown to be non-addictive and I would refute that. It has been shown that there is no physical addition, but there is certainly an emotional one.
The bottom line is that there are a lot of substances in this world and they can all be used for some good purpose (getting high is not such a purposes, but that's an argument for another day). And they call all be used very wrongly also.
Why to doctors regulate prescription drugs? Because they are very useful if taken properly, but very dangerous if not. And in many cases, it's not just the abuser that is harmed. Antibiotics used to be prescribed a lot more, but it's been learned that bacteria is mutating and a lot of strains of bacteria are immune to many forms of antibiotics. And that's what's happened with them regulated.
At any rate, that's getting off subject. We were talking about dispositions to certain behavior. Well, while I don't discount the responsibility of the parent, there are a lot of influences on children growing up now days. In fact, I emphasize the responsibility of the parent to instill in their children proper values and an ability to judge for themselves.
However, the fact remains that children are naturally curious and experimental. Now, I'm sure plenty of people will refute what I am about to say with, "...but, I..." - many children never quite recover from experimentation with drugs. And if you, in your own mind, feel you can occasionally take drugs and keep it under control, then you have to live with that decision.
So, the next argument is that this happens anyway and making it legal will just make it easier to regulate? Does anyone here deny that nicotine is a drug? Look at cigarettes and how damaging they are, yet they are rampant. There have been improvements, but there is still plenty of advertising for cigarrettes and alcohol that is directed at young people. Why? Because the cigarrette and alcohol industries know that responsibile adults almost never just simply decide to start smoking or drinking for the first time. Instead, they start young and by the time they are "responsible" adults, they are already used to such activities.
And I assure you, legalizing drugs would be the first step. The next would be lobbyist for "free speach" saying they should be able to have whatever ads they want. So it would happen.
T
train
Guest
I can see it now...
"Look mom!, this is Tony the tiger's special fiber cereal!"
"Look mom!, this is Tony the tiger's special fiber cereal!"
R
Rooser
Guest
In response to NS' first comment - Well just so you know, I wasn't really accusing anybody here of being so close-minded. This is actually one of the most open-minded boards I've ever seen.
In response to EricBess - no need to get so vindictive towards me. I never argued that pot wasn't addictive, nor that problems seem to surround drug use. I certainly didn't claim that everybody in this country was a responsible adult. In fact, the existence of irresponsible people only strengthens my argument: People are going to do "bad" things regardless, its not like they sit around and wait for the drugs to do it for them, (I put "bad" in quotation marks because I question our capacity to judge any true objective morality; all things are justifiable at some point, but that <b>is</b> an argument for another thread).
Drug control is kind of like gun control. Banning the use of guns would probably have a positive effect on our country, (For the most part - I would forsee at least one hippie getting beaten to death by rednecks on account of his voting against guns), but the problem with it would be that it only addresses one <b>means,/b> of murder and violence, not the underlying aspects of our culture which might breed such disposition.
Personally I think dealing with all the corruption in the mass media so that more mature and responsible material can be viewed will have a greater impact on social problems that the restriction of arbitrary consumptives.
In response to EricBess - no need to get so vindictive towards me. I never argued that pot wasn't addictive, nor that problems seem to surround drug use. I certainly didn't claim that everybody in this country was a responsible adult. In fact, the existence of irresponsible people only strengthens my argument: People are going to do "bad" things regardless, its not like they sit around and wait for the drugs to do it for them, (I put "bad" in quotation marks because I question our capacity to judge any true objective morality; all things are justifiable at some point, but that <b>is</b> an argument for another thread).
Drug control is kind of like gun control. Banning the use of guns would probably have a positive effect on our country, (For the most part - I would forsee at least one hippie getting beaten to death by rednecks on account of his voting against guns), but the problem with it would be that it only addresses one <b>means,/b> of murder and violence, not the underlying aspects of our culture which might breed such disposition.
Personally I think dealing with all the corruption in the mass media so that more mature and responsible material can be viewed will have a greater impact on social problems that the restriction of arbitrary consumptives.
N
Nightstalkers
Guest
Are you calling me a pissy little, closeminded brat?
Fine with me as for I know too much about nothing already.
And who the hell is this other Nightstalkers? is that you Eris? I've changed the password for this stupid account four times and still you insist on tormenting me! LEAVE ME ALONE ERIS!!!!
And yes, I still know your address so I would watch what you get in the mail.
E
EricBess
Guest
Rooster, I wasn't being vindictive, I was being satirical.
I fail to see your point about irresponsible people in existance strengthening your argument. I think you might be missing the point of my argument. If an adult desides to be irresponsible, that their choice.
Okay, if a child desides to be irresponsible, I suppose that's their choice as well, but youth view things differently and without the aid of experience. They are naturally drawn to certain things that are potentially harmful to them and they aren't typically mature enough to thing through the consequences beforehand.
And in the case of drugs, by the time the are mature enough, it is often too late. I have plenty of friends who smoke and wish they didn't, but it is very difficult to stop once it becomes an addiction.
And I know that you didn't say that pot wasn't addictive, but there are earlier posts in this thread that have.
Still, I think there is a flaw in your comparison between drugs and gun control. If I have understood you correctly, you were saying that the bad people are going to get the illicit items anyway. Or, at the least, they would find other means. I think that banning firearms would reduce the number of murders of opportunity, but in general, premeditated murder would still happen regardless (as you pointed out) and banning firearms would increase burglary as honest people would have one less way to protect their homes if they are so inclined.
I do see your point and agree that banning the means is not the cure to the problem. However, the argument that it should be legal because bad people are going to do it anyway is fundamentally flawed.
Consider a child growing up in a household where a healthy respect for others is fostered. The child becomes a teen and decides to start rebelling. Hopefully, the child has been taught well, but assuming the worst here, the child is likely to turn to petty theft and possibly drugs as a form of rebellion. Eventually, this might lead to more desperate acts, but for the most part, rebellion is a cry for attention, so it is not likely to progress too quickly.
Now, a different child who grows up in a household where the father is a drunk and the mother is a pot head (for example). What's this child going to do when he wants to rebel? I suppose it's possible he will do so by getting straight A's in school, but more likely, it's going to be far worse than the previous case.
Anyway, I don't discredit the argument, which I feel is valid enough. I just don't agree with the concuclusions that you draw.
I fail to see your point about irresponsible people in existance strengthening your argument. I think you might be missing the point of my argument. If an adult desides to be irresponsible, that their choice.
Okay, if a child desides to be irresponsible, I suppose that's their choice as well, but youth view things differently and without the aid of experience. They are naturally drawn to certain things that are potentially harmful to them and they aren't typically mature enough to thing through the consequences beforehand.
And in the case of drugs, by the time the are mature enough, it is often too late. I have plenty of friends who smoke and wish they didn't, but it is very difficult to stop once it becomes an addiction.
And I know that you didn't say that pot wasn't addictive, but there are earlier posts in this thread that have.
Still, I think there is a flaw in your comparison between drugs and gun control. If I have understood you correctly, you were saying that the bad people are going to get the illicit items anyway. Or, at the least, they would find other means. I think that banning firearms would reduce the number of murders of opportunity, but in general, premeditated murder would still happen regardless (as you pointed out) and banning firearms would increase burglary as honest people would have one less way to protect their homes if they are so inclined.
I do see your point and agree that banning the means is not the cure to the problem. However, the argument that it should be legal because bad people are going to do it anyway is fundamentally flawed.
Consider a child growing up in a household where a healthy respect for others is fostered. The child becomes a teen and decides to start rebelling. Hopefully, the child has been taught well, but assuming the worst here, the child is likely to turn to petty theft and possibly drugs as a form of rebellion. Eventually, this might lead to more desperate acts, but for the most part, rebellion is a cry for attention, so it is not likely to progress too quickly.
Now, a different child who grows up in a household where the father is a drunk and the mother is a pot head (for example). What's this child going to do when he wants to rebel? I suppose it's possible he will do so by getting straight A's in school, but more likely, it's going to be far worse than the previous case.
Anyway, I don't discredit the argument, which I feel is valid enough. I just don't agree with the concuclusions that you draw.
"But...but...I smoke pot and I'm responsible and all of the other kids in the world are IDENTICAL to me. They all have high IQ's and use the internet strictly for informative purposes and would never think about doing anything wrong!! You're just trying to take away my ability to have fun!!!! Waaaaahhhh! If I weren't so responsible, I'd tell my mommy on you!!!"
-Ferret
This post is in reverse.
-Ferret
This post is in reverse.
E
EricBess
Guest
Exactly
R
Reverend Love
Guest
I know I'm getting in this conversation really late but I'm in general agreement with Mongoose Man. Here's my quick summarize of the question.
1.Legalise pot and license out the rights to plant, harvest and distribute.
2.Create laws, which require annual inspections of their processing of the crop and those whom sell it, be it your local 7'11" or smoke shop. Your average Joe-Shmoe should not be allowed to grow his own.
This does two very important things. Effectively takes out your small time drug dealers, which now hopefully won't graduate to "heavier" drugs, and maintains a quality of sorts. Confirming that the substance isn't cut with Drano or whatever handy household chemical is available (yes, pot is cut sometimes. Usually soaked in something).
3. Apply monumental taxes on it's production and sale which it turn are used to combat truly destructive drugs like cocaine and heroine.
4. Using the current laws applying to alcohol as a template 21 and older, illegal to drive, operate machinery, etc. while under the influence.
1.Legalise pot and license out the rights to plant, harvest and distribute.
2.Create laws, which require annual inspections of their processing of the crop and those whom sell it, be it your local 7'11" or smoke shop. Your average Joe-Shmoe should not be allowed to grow his own.
This does two very important things. Effectively takes out your small time drug dealers, which now hopefully won't graduate to "heavier" drugs, and maintains a quality of sorts. Confirming that the substance isn't cut with Drano or whatever handy household chemical is available (yes, pot is cut sometimes. Usually soaked in something).
3. Apply monumental taxes on it's production and sale which it turn are used to combat truly destructive drugs like cocaine and heroine.
4. Using the current laws applying to alcohol as a template 21 and older, illegal to drive, operate machinery, etc. while under the influence.
N
Nightstalkers
Guest
I think that I'll just stay in Oregon, selling prescriptions for thousands of dollars... Isn't this state great.