|
On October 18 2011 06:07 NeThZOR wrote:
The illegal use of drug is quite rampant in most countries of the world, and it is disconcerting to see how people waste away their lives by something as pathetic as drugs. I have quite a few friends who use drugs in some form or another be it alcohol, weed, cocaine, etc. Now I am not saying that I have never consumed alcohol, but by using worse drugs than that is just looking for trouble. I believe that people should not mess with drugs, as it destroys lives. How many of a friend have I not seen administered into rehabilitation programs because of substance abuse. We need to take care of ourselves, and not systematically cause our own demise.
News flash man, alcohol is the worst drug out there, for your health as well as for society.
|
I don't have any problem with people who smoke pot or anything relatively natural. However seeing posts about drug users "seeing through the bullshit" is just a load of self admiring crap.
Also, people being born an addict? Seriously?
|
On October 18 2011 05:58 ahx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 05:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 18 2011 05:15 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 05:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 18 2011 05:02 VPCursed wrote:On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote:
Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement! if i smoked pot right now. Who am i hurting? i suppose some of my family members might hurt cause my room will smell like pot for some time. but thats fine. We will get over it. Your post: "Who am I hurting" ::names people:: "We'll get over it." Oh okay then? But yes, pot is probably the least harmful drug (although any short-term effects that would alter your mind or body could harm others if you're dumb enough to drive a car while under the influence, just like driving drunk). Also, isn't doing drugs not a victimless crime because *you're* a victim? You're destroying your body (certainly with the harder drugs over a long period of time, ignoring milder things like marijuana)? As a lot of other people have already mentioned, and it really doesn't take a huge leap of common sense to see it... There are tons of legal ways to destroy your body, in must faster and more severe ways than ANY of the illegal drugs. Fatty Foods/Heart Disease, Cigarettes/Cancer. Obviously the government and general populace isn't against weed because it destroys your body.... herp derp Of course there are tons of legal ways to slowly destroy your body too. That's not what the topic is, so I don't appreciate the red herring. Let's try staying on topic now, thanks. What we're talking about here is illegal drugs. Doing illegal drugs harms your body as well, and so to say the crime is victimless is just wrong because you're a victim. That's merely the point I was making. You comparing legal and illegal ways to destroy your body doesn't make illegal drugs "victimless crimes". And I was careful to separate pot from other, more harmful drugs, so please note that eating a cheeseburger or smoking a cigarette and then getting behind the wheel of a car is not worthy of being arrested, because your mind isn't altered, whereas smoking pot (or doing something worse) is. herp derp yourself, try paying attention please. And you would know first hand at how dangerous it is to drive under the influence of weed, right?
Because that's an argument.
And I'm going to down a bottle of scotch before I know that driving drunk is bad too, right?
On October 18 2011 06:01 ryanAnger wrote:
If you had the presence of mind to do any amount of research before making outrageous claims, you'd realize that of all things that negatively impact your ability to drive, consumption of marijuana is one of the least detrimental.
It's called research, my friend. I never said that marijuana hurts your chances of driving moreso than any other illegal drug. But it absolutely hinders your driving ability.
"A 2001 study by the United Kingdom Transit Research Laboratory (TRL) specifically focuses on the effects of cannabis use on driving,[37] and is one of the most recent and commonly quoted studies on the subject. The report summarizes current knowledge about the effects of cannabis on driving and accident risk based on a review of available literature published since 1994 and the effects of cannabis on laboratory based tasks.
The study identified young males, amongst whom cannabis consumption is frequent and increasing, and in whom alcohol consumption is also common, as a risk group for traffic accidents. This is due to driving inexperience and factors associated with youth relating to risk taking, delinquency and motivation. These demographic and psychosocial variables may relate to both drug use and accident risk, thereby presenting an artificial relationship between use of drugs and accident involvement.
The effects of cannabis on laboratory-based tasks show clear impairment with respect to tracking ability, attention, and other tasks depending on the dose administered. Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in:
increased variability in lane position (such as taking a curve too tightly or too loosely).
longer decision times, leading to slower responses to driving situations
Kelly, Darke and Ross[38] show similar results, with laboratory studies examining the effects of cannabis on skills utilised while driving showing impairments in tracking, attention, reaction time, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, vigilance, time and distance perception, and decision making and concentration. An EMCDDA[39] review concluded that "the acute effect of moderate or higher doses of cannabis impairs the skills related to safe driving and injury risk", specifically "attention, tracking and psychomotor skills".[39] In their review of driving simulator studies, Kelly et al.[38] conclude that there is evidence of dose-dependent impairments in cannabis-affected drivers' ability to control a vehicle in the areas of steering, headway control, speed variability, car following, reaction time and lane positioning. The researchers note that "even in those who learn to compensate for a drug's impairing effects, substantial impairment in performance can still be observed under conditions of general task performance (i.e. when no contingencies are present to maintain compensated performance)."[39]"
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Effects_on_driving
Will that do?
|
|
|
On October 18 2011 06:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 05:25 Ayabara wrote:On October 18 2011 05:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 18 2011 04:42 Ayabara wrote:On October 18 2011 04:36 Haemonculus wrote:On October 18 2011 04:35 Ayabara wrote:On October 18 2011 04:32 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:On October 17 2011 11:34 Antoine wrote:
people don't choose to be black or female.
they choose to use drugs/smoke/drink etc
this is the critical difference.
to address your above post, at some point the person made the choice to start. ^ this. I am surprised no-one has made this distinction yet. A gay person isn't gay if they never decide to have gay sex. Therefore, being gay is a choice! Just like being an addict is a choice! Does that make people who are celibate not straight? o.O Sarcasm! Straight people are straight. Gay people are gay. Addicts are addicts. They are all predetermined conditions, that is to say, there is no choice to be made. An addict is an addict for life, from the moment they are born to the day they die, they will struggle with their condition. And in what world, exactly, can anyone live in where people will go through their entire life without ever using a drug? Alcohol, medicinal opiates, marijuana... they are all very prevalent and most people use them without every having an addiction problem. Only those who are prone to addiction will become addicted. But I guess no one ever should use any mind altering drugs just to be safe! Where's that Jackie Chan meme when you need it? Or is the confused psychologist one better? You don't choose to start your sexual orientation. You choose to take your first harmful drug. You don't come out of the womb with the fate that you're going to become a heroin addict, and that your life will be over no matter what. You still make the conscious decision to start heroin, and that is the reason why it's your fault you went down that path to destruction, and why your analogy makes zero sense. Maybe you get addicted, and the effect that drugs have on your body can't be helped by you. But you're still the idiot who tried them in the first place. You can't be a heroin addict if you never try heroin. If you're stupid enough to take the risk and try harmful drugs even once, be prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences (which include addiction). This isn't even remotely close to being gay, and I can't believe that you're saying "addiction and sexual orientation both have genetic components, so therefore addicts and gays can be equated." Worst. Non sequitur. Ever. (And I'm not saying that it's impossible for there to be benefits of drugs. I'm merely saying that if you're going to take the risk in doing drugs, you need to be prepared to deal with any consequences, including addiction. You're making the conscious decision to take part in this experimentation. On the other hand, you're the still gay, regardless of whether or not you do anything about it.) You clearly don't know anything about the science of addiction. It is a predetermined condition. It isn't a choice. And you don't find out until you are already addicted to something. Very few people try heroin, because its widely known that it can be extremely dangerous. Those that are willing to take the risk for the possible effect aren't "stupid." They desire the described effect for a reason. Heroin doesn't have a profound effect, really. It's far more subtle than alcohol. It makes one feel comfortable, the most comfortable you can imagine. Like, Christmas morning with the whole family by the fire in a blanket with hot chocolate level of comfort. Potential users seek the effect despite the threat that the use of the drug poses to their life because they are psychologically ill, not because they are 'stupid.' They are prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences because they don't care about them. They don't care about ruining their lives. All they care about is not feeling like shit anymore. Happy, stable, healthy people almost never try heroin. In fact, most hardcore addicts are usually victims of severe child abuse or childhood trauma. Most addicts suffered from depression long before they even began using, and pursued drugs because of that depression.And really, are you such an asshole that you would think someone is trash just because of one mistake? Trying a drug once and BAM their lives are fucked? Or would you hate them because they continue to use, even though overcoming addiction is one of the most difficult struggles a human can go through?
If so, you're a worse human being than any addict I've ever met. This is such a hypocritical post, compared to everyone else's thoughts, I just need to point this out. Everyone else is talking about how great drugs are, and I personally don't mind if drugs are legalized, because I don't think the government should have any say in what a person should or shouldn't do with their body, as long as they pay the consequences if they commit a crime under the influence. But now all of a sudden, drug users are all victims, and the only release they can get are drugs (which are apparently mistakes), and now I should feel compassion for those who are addicted to their solution (which they wanted anyway)? I certainly never said anything about thinking of them as trash, but they certainly made the decision to try something bad. If anything, you made it more clear that drug users are unintelligent people, if I'm supposed to take anything out of your post (although I don't know if I'm going to believe you or not, as plenty of people on TL seem to be rather smart, and have no problem with bragging about doing drugs). So I'll just say what I said before, in different words: Those of us who are well-educated know that certain drugs can be addictive and incredibly harmful. If you want to take them (for whatever reason), you do that, and hopefully that works out well for you and you don't end up addicted or hurt or dead. Do what you want, but people are going to judge you based on the decisions you make. That doesn't make them "assholes".
How did I at all say that drug users were unintelligent? I was talking about why addicts pursue drugs. I said twice that it doesn't make them stupid. Stop being fucking retarded.
Addicts are victims. Not users, addicts. Big, big, big difference.
And people who hate addicts for being addicts are judgmental assholes.
Asshole.
User was warned for this post
|
Basically my stance on this is kinda hard to explain, but more or less it boils down to me not really caring. I know that I will probably never (I don't want to say never, because that is so final) use drugs, but it doesn't really affect my opinion in a negative way. I just know the person a little bit better now and learned something about them that I didn't know before.
The best way I can explain my position is with an example. So there was this really quiet and shy girl that I have known since like first grade. Last year I found out she smokes pot. Never saw it coming-she is the kinda person you would never expect to do anything illegal. Like at all. Up until that point I think that I would have begun to avoid that person, but for some reason I was just kinda like "Ok whatever." And now I just know her a little bit better and that was the end of it.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 18 2011 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 05:58 ahx wrote:On October 18 2011 05:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 18 2011 05:15 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 05:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 18 2011 05:02 VPCursed wrote:On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote:
Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement! if i smoked pot right now. Who am i hurting? i suppose some of my family members might hurt cause my room will smell like pot for some time. but thats fine. We will get over it. Your post: "Who am I hurting" ::names people:: "We'll get over it." Oh okay then? But yes, pot is probably the least harmful drug (although any short-term effects that would alter your mind or body could harm others if you're dumb enough to drive a car while under the influence, just like driving drunk). Also, isn't doing drugs not a victimless crime because *you're* a victim? You're destroying your body (certainly with the harder drugs over a long period of time, ignoring milder things like marijuana)? As a lot of other people have already mentioned, and it really doesn't take a huge leap of common sense to see it... There are tons of legal ways to destroy your body, in must faster and more severe ways than ANY of the illegal drugs. Fatty Foods/Heart Disease, Cigarettes/Cancer. Obviously the government and general populace isn't against weed because it destroys your body.... herp derp Of course there are tons of legal ways to slowly destroy your body too. That's not what the topic is, so I don't appreciate the red herring. Let's try staying on topic now, thanks. What we're talking about here is illegal drugs. Doing illegal drugs harms your body as well, and so to say the crime is victimless is just wrong because you're a victim. That's merely the point I was making. You comparing legal and illegal ways to destroy your body doesn't make illegal drugs "victimless crimes". And I was careful to separate pot from other, more harmful drugs, so please note that eating a cheeseburger or smoking a cigarette and then getting behind the wheel of a car is not worthy of being arrested, because your mind isn't altered, whereas smoking pot (or doing something worse) is. herp derp yourself, try paying attention please. And you would know first hand at how dangerous it is to drive under the influence of weed, right? Because that's an argument. And I'm going to down a bottle of scotch before I know that driving drunk is bad too, right? Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 06:01 ryanAnger wrote:
If you had the presence of mind to do any amount of research before making outrageous claims, you'd realize that of all things that negatively impact your ability to drive, consumption of marijuana is one of the least detrimental.
It's called research, my friend. I never said that marijuana hurts your chances of driving moreso than any other illegal drug. But it absolutely hinders your driving ability. "A 2001 study by the United Kingdom Transit Research Laboratory (TRL) specifically focuses on the effects of cannabis use on driving,[37] and is one of the most recent and commonly quoted studies on the subject. The report summarizes current knowledge about the effects of cannabis on driving and accident risk based on a review of available literature published since 1994 and the effects of cannabis on laboratory based tasks. The study identified young males, amongst whom cannabis consumption is frequent and increasing, and in whom alcohol consumption is also common, as a risk group for traffic accidents. This is due to driving inexperience and factors associated with youth relating to risk taking, delinquency and motivation. These demographic and psychosocial variables may relate to both drug use and accident risk, thereby presenting an artificial relationship between use of drugs and accident involvement. The effects of cannabis on laboratory-based tasks show clear impairment with respect to tracking ability, attention, and other tasks depending on the dose administered. Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in: increased variability in lane position (such as taking a curve too tightly or too loosely). longer decision times, leading to slower responses to driving situations Kelly, Darke and Ross[38] show similar results, with laboratory studies examining the effects of cannabis on skills utilised while driving showing impairments in tracking, attention, reaction time, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, vigilance, time and distance perception, and decision making and concentration. An EMCDDA[39] review concluded that "the acute effect of moderate or higher doses of cannabis impairs the skills related to safe driving and injury risk", specifically "attention, tracking and psychomotor skills".[39] In their review of driving simulator studies, Kelly et al.[38] conclude that there is evidence of dose-dependent impairments in cannabis-affected drivers' ability to control a vehicle in the areas of steering, headway control, speed variability, car following, reaction time and lane positioning. The researchers note that "even in those who learn to compensate for a drug's impairing effects, substantial impairment in performance can still be observed under conditions of general task performance (i.e. when no contingencies are present to maintain compensated performance)."[39]" ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Effects_on_driving It's sooo nice to see that people know what they're talking about -.-'
Yes.. it is an argument, you have no clue what you're talking about and for someone so "highly educated" you're pretty stupid. You ACTUALLY think wikipedia is a legitimate source for information? ... try again
|
On October 18 2011 06:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 05:25 Ayabara wrote:On October 18 2011 05:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 18 2011 04:42 Ayabara wrote:On October 18 2011 04:36 Haemonculus wrote:On October 18 2011 04:35 Ayabara wrote:On October 18 2011 04:32 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:On October 17 2011 11:34 Antoine wrote:
people don't choose to be black or female.
they choose to use drugs/smoke/drink etc
this is the critical difference.
to address your above post, at some point the person made the choice to start. ^ this. I am surprised no-one has made this distinction yet. A gay person isn't gay if they never decide to have gay sex. Therefore, being gay is a choice! Just like being an addict is a choice! Does that make people who are celibate not straight? o.O Sarcasm! Straight people are straight. Gay people are gay. Addicts are addicts. They are all predetermined conditions, that is to say, there is no choice to be made. An addict is an addict for life, from the moment they are born to the day they die, they will struggle with their condition. And in what world, exactly, can anyone live in where people will go through their entire life without ever using a drug? Alcohol, medicinal opiates, marijuana... they are all very prevalent and most people use them without every having an addiction problem. Only those who are prone to addiction will become addicted. But I guess no one ever should use any mind altering drugs just to be safe! Where's that Jackie Chan meme when you need it? Or is the confused psychologist one better? You don't choose to start your sexual orientation. You choose to take your first harmful drug. You don't come out of the womb with the fate that you're going to become a heroin addict, and that your life will be over no matter what. You still make the conscious decision to start heroin, and that is the reason why it's your fault you went down that path to destruction, and why your analogy makes zero sense. Maybe you get addicted, and the effect that drugs have on your body can't be helped by you. But you're still the idiot who tried them in the first place. You can't be a heroin addict if you never try heroin. If you're stupid enough to take the risk and try harmful drugs even once, be prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences (which include addiction). This isn't even remotely close to being gay, and I can't believe that you're saying "addiction and sexual orientation both have genetic components, so therefore addicts and gays can be equated." Worst. Non sequitur. Ever. (And I'm not saying that it's impossible for there to be benefits of drugs. I'm merely saying that if you're going to take the risk in doing drugs, you need to be prepared to deal with any consequences, including addiction. You're making the conscious decision to take part in this experimentation. On the other hand, you're the still gay, regardless of whether or not you do anything about it.) You clearly don't know anything about the science of addiction. It is a predetermined condition. It isn't a choice. And you don't find out until you are already addicted to something. Very few people try heroin, because its widely known that it can be extremely dangerous. Those that are willing to take the risk for the possible effect aren't "stupid." They desire the described effect for a reason. Heroin doesn't have a profound effect, really. It's far more subtle than alcohol. It makes one feel comfortable, the most comfortable you can imagine. Like, Christmas morning with the whole family by the fire in a blanket with hot chocolate level of comfort. Potential users seek the effect despite the threat that the use of the drug poses to their life because they are psychologically ill, not because they are 'stupid.' They are prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences because they don't care about them. They don't care about ruining their lives. All they care about is not feeling like shit anymore. Happy, stable, healthy people almost never try heroin. In fact, most hardcore addicts are usually victims of severe child abuse or childhood trauma. Most addicts suffered from depression long before they even began using, and pursued drugs because of that depression.And really, are you such an asshole that you would think someone is trash just because of one mistake? Trying a drug once and BAM their lives are fucked? Or would you hate them because they continue to use, even though overcoming addiction is one of the most difficult struggles a human can go through?
If so, you're a worse human being than any addict I've ever met. This is such a hypocritical post, compared to everyone else's thoughts, I just need to point this out. Everyone else is talking about how great drugs are, and I personally don't mind if drugs are legalized, because I don't think the government should have any say in what a person should or shouldn't do with their body, as long as they pay the consequences if they commit a crime under the influence. But now all of a sudden, drug users are all victims, and the only release they can get are drugs (which are apparently mistakes), and now I should feel compassion for those who are addicted to their solution (which they wanted anyway)? I certainly never said anything about thinking of them as trash, but they certainly made the decision to try something bad. If anything, you made it more clear that drug users are unintelligent people, if I'm supposed to take anything out of your post (although I don't know if I'm going to believe you or not, as plenty of people on TL seem to be rather smart, and have no problem with bragging about doing drugs). So I'll just say what I said before, in different words: Those of us who are well-educated know that certain drugs can be addictive and incredibly harmful. If you want to take them (for whatever reason), you do that, and hopefully that works out well for you and you don't end up addicted or hurt or dead. Do what you want, but people are going to judge you based on the decisions you make. That doesn't make them "assholes".
what makes people assholes is that they assume a person is addicted to drugs, because they make "bad choices" without reasoning why those bad choices are made. Same way some people are like "LOL wtf, why dont you get a job you homeless bum" without realizing the person they are talking to most likley has mental imbalances that prevent him, or blind him, from making the "correct" choice.
Sometimes its better not to say anything, then to give out your 2cents without any reason.
|
On October 18 2011 06:11 SupLilSon wrote:
Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit.
Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms.
|
Anyone is welcome to judge others how they want as long as they're at least respectful.
My only gripe is the parsing between legal drugs and illegal drugs. Someone who drinks even a single beer regularly is consuming, regularly, one of the most inebriating, intoxicating and personally-destructive drugs on the planet. Which is fine, it's also a drug which can be enjoyed in moderation, at least by some people. But it is a drug, and a serious one at that.
I've smoked and drank and seen my fair share of all types. Frankly, I really do think alcohol is insanely underrated to how much it actually does to a person. I look at someone who is properly drunk, and they're quite simply less in control of themselves than most people are on other drugs.
The withdrawal from alcohol, should you become addicted, can outright kill you like no other drug can. It doesn't just damage brain cells, it destroys your liver too.
It's pretty much the oldest, easiest to make drug make. That's the real difference.
|
For the second poll I chose "it depends". I don't really care if they use drugs on and off, like smoking pot at a party, but as soon as they start falling into stoner culture, I lose all respect for them.
For instance, whenever I see an Xbox Live tag with 420, or any other reference to pot, I immediately assume they completely lack any value as a human being.
|
On October 18 2011 06:17 ahx wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 18 2011 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 05:58 ahx wrote:On October 18 2011 05:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 18 2011 05:15 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 05:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 18 2011 05:02 VPCursed wrote:On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote:
Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement! if i smoked pot right now. Who am i hurting? i suppose some of my family members might hurt cause my room will smell like pot for some time. but thats fine. We will get over it. Your post: "Who am I hurting" ::names people:: "We'll get over it." Oh okay then? But yes, pot is probably the least harmful drug (although any short-term effects that would alter your mind or body could harm others if you're dumb enough to drive a car while under the influence, just like driving drunk). Also, isn't doing drugs not a victimless crime because *you're* a victim? You're destroying your body (certainly with the harder drugs over a long period of time, ignoring milder things like marijuana)? As a lot of other people have already mentioned, and it really doesn't take a huge leap of common sense to see it... There are tons of legal ways to destroy your body, in must faster and more severe ways than ANY of the illegal drugs. Fatty Foods/Heart Disease, Cigarettes/Cancer. Obviously the government and general populace isn't against weed because it destroys your body.... herp derp Of course there are tons of legal ways to slowly destroy your body too. That's not what the topic is, so I don't appreciate the red herring. Let's try staying on topic now, thanks. What we're talking about here is illegal drugs. Doing illegal drugs harms your body as well, and so to say the crime is victimless is just wrong because you're a victim. That's merely the point I was making. You comparing legal and illegal ways to destroy your body doesn't make illegal drugs "victimless crimes". And I was careful to separate pot from other, more harmful drugs, so please note that eating a cheeseburger or smoking a cigarette and then getting behind the wheel of a car is not worthy of being arrested, because your mind isn't altered, whereas smoking pot (or doing something worse) is. herp derp yourself, try paying attention please. And you would know first hand at how dangerous it is to drive under the influence of weed, right? Because that's an argument. And I'm going to down a bottle of scotch before I know that driving drunk is bad too, right? Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 06:01 ryanAnger wrote:
If you had the presence of mind to do any amount of research before making outrageous claims, you'd realize that of all things that negatively impact your ability to drive, consumption of marijuana is one of the least detrimental.
It's called research, my friend. I never said that marijuana hurts your chances of driving moreso than any other illegal drug. But it absolutely hinders your driving ability. "A 2001 study by the United Kingdom Transit Research Laboratory (TRL) specifically focuses on the effects of cannabis use on driving,[37] and is one of the most recent and commonly quoted studies on the subject. The report summarizes current knowledge about the effects of cannabis on driving and accident risk based on a review of available literature published since 1994 and the effects of cannabis on laboratory based tasks. The study identified young males, amongst whom cannabis consumption is frequent and increasing, and in whom alcohol consumption is also common, as a risk group for traffic accidents. This is due to driving inexperience and factors associated with youth relating to risk taking, delinquency and motivation. These demographic and psychosocial variables may relate to both drug use and accident risk, thereby presenting an artificial relationship between use of drugs and accident involvement. The effects of cannabis on laboratory-based tasks show clear impairment with respect to tracking ability, attention, and other tasks depending on the dose administered. Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in: increased variability in lane position (such as taking a curve too tightly or too loosely). longer decision times, leading to slower responses to driving situations Kelly, Darke and Ross[38] show similar results, with laboratory studies examining the effects of cannabis on skills utilised while driving showing impairments in tracking, attention, reaction time, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, vigilance, time and distance perception, and decision making and concentration. An EMCDDA[39] review concluded that "the acute effect of moderate or higher doses of cannabis impairs the skills related to safe driving and injury risk", specifically "attention, tracking and psychomotor skills".[39] In their review of driving simulator studies, Kelly et al.[38] conclude that there is evidence of dose-dependent impairments in cannabis-affected drivers' ability to control a vehicle in the areas of steering, headway control, speed variability, car following, reaction time and lane positioning. The researchers note that "even in those who learn to compensate for a drug's impairing effects, substantial impairment in performance can still be observed under conditions of general task performance (i.e. when no contingencies are present to maintain compensated performance)."[39]" ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Effects_on_driving It's sooo nice to see that people know what they're talking about -.-' Yes.. it is an argument, you have no clue what you're talking about and for someone so "highly educated" you're pretty stupid. You ACTUALLY think wikipedia is a legitimate source for information? ... try again
LOL Yes, please dismiss all the cited references, including The National Archives, Drug and Alcohol Review, and European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
This is really too much. Tons of documented evidence on that source (73 references on the entire page, to be exact), and that's not enough for you.
Fine, not credible, should have had 74 or 75. Darn it.
Here's another:
"Effects on Driving: The drug manufacturer suggests that patients receiving treatment with Marinol® should be specifically warned not to drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely. Epidemiology data from road traffic arrests and fatalities indicate that after alcohol, marijuana is the most frequently detected psychoactive substance among driving populations. Marijuana has been shown to impair performance on driving simulator tasks and on open and closed driving courses for up to approximately 3 hours. Decreased car handling performance, increased reaction times, impaired time and distance estimation, inability to maintain headway, lateral travel, subjective sleepiness, motor incoordination, and impaired sustained vigilance have all been reported. Some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment. The greater the demands placed on the driver, however, the more critical the likely impairment. Marijuana may particularly impair monotonous and prolonged driving. Decision times to evaluate situations and determine appropriate responses increase. Mixing alcohol and marijuana may dramatically produce effects greater than either drug on its own."
~http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm
And another:
"Laboratory studies have shown that cannabis compromises reaction time, attention, decision making, time and distance perception, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, and concentration. These studies have the advantage of being able to test the effects of large doses of cannabis under controlled conditions, but it is unclear to what extent these results apply to real- world driving."
~http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/factsheets/article/cannabis-and-driving
But now I'm just text-walling, and you guys aren't even reading any of this evidence anyway. It's really intellectually dishonest of you, actually.
I don't mind people smoking pot. I hear it's fun. Just please don't smoke and drive 
|
On October 18 2011 06:22 Millitron wrote:
For the second poll I chose "it depends". I don't really care if they use drugs on and off, like smoking pot at a party, but as soon as they start falling into stoner culture, I lose all respect for them.
For instance, whenever I see an Xbox Live tag with 420, or any other reference to pot, I immediately assume they completely lack any value as a human being.
How is that any different than old people thinking anyone who plays video games or is immersed in gamer culture is brainwashed?
|
On October 18 2011 06:19 Dranak wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 06:11 SupLilSon wrote:
Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit. Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms.
It really is shocking that people blindly accept cultural norms without ever thinking for themselves. If you don't see a problem with this then you would have loved Nazi Germany.
|
On October 18 2011 06:02 Nibbler89 wrote:
So first off since I think it's reasonable to not want to be around people who use drugs which can make a person dangerous, so instead I'll focus on the prejudice against pot users since I think most people can agree whether you approve of pot users or not that they aren't really dangerous so if you disapprove of them it's probably for reasons other than your personal safety.
So it seems a lot of people that are prejudiced against pot users are using the reason that it's a choice and they believe it's a unhealthy lifestyle choice. Therefore you can make assumptions about the person that are negative and not want to hang around them.
So do these same people also feel the same way about people who are fat / over weight and choose not to hang out with them? I'd think most people would say food isn't as addictive of a substance as drugs yet there is still a huge obesity problem in western nations. Do they consider people who are over weight, overweight by choice? Because overweight people "choose" to eat too much food or unhealthy food and not exercise enough. Do you make similar assumptions about them as many here seem to do about drug users? That they are lazy, rely on artificial happiness through food, don't care about their appearance to others and live an unhealthy lifestyle that doesn't involve being active?
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US so it's not as if it doesn't hurt anyone, obviously the person who is over weight but also the stress placed on healthcare.
I'm not saying these are my views I'm just wondering how/if people can reconcile being prejudiced against someone that uses marijuana but not be the same for overweight people when the same reasoning for their prejudice could be applied(disapproval of a unhealthy lifestyle so therefore do not want to be around them).Things like hanging out with meth users is obviously dangerous / scary for good reasons so I'm focusing on the prejudice based upon what is seen as a chosen unhealthy life style.
I'm a fat guy myself and I don't hang out with a bunch of body builders and health enthusiasts. Is that prejudice? Yeah, that's a form of prejudice because I believe I can't relate with them because our hobbies might be different. People prioritize who they want to associate with what they value, for some people substance use is a no go. I'm fine with certain substance use but no form of substance abuse personally. Does that mean that a substance abuser can't be an awesome person? No. But because I value x, I choose not to associate with y.
Prejudice is a part of life and as long as that prejudice doesn't manifest itself in a form that violates the rights of individuals or the law, then there is no problem. This opinion poll is silly, I think time posting here would be better spent discussing social changes and the legalization of certain drugs.
|
On October 18 2011 06:13 uiCk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 06:02 Nibbler89 wrote:
So first off since I think it's reasonable to not want to be around people who use drugs which can make a person dangerous, so instead I'll focus on the prejudice against pot users since I think most people can agree whether you approve of pot users or not that they aren't really dangerous so if you disapprove of them it's probably for reasons other than your personal safety.
So it seems a lot of people that are prejudiced against pot users are using the reason that it's a choice and they believe it's a unhealthy lifestyle choice. Therefore you can make assumptions about the person that are negative and not want to hang around them.
So do these same people also feel the same way about people who are fat / over weight and choose not to hang out with them? I'd think most people would say food isn't as addictive of a substance as drugs yet there is still a huge obesity problem in western nations. Do they consider people who are over weight, overweight by choice? Because overweight people "choose" to eat too much food or unhealthy food and not exercise enough. Do you make similar assumptions about them as many here seem to do about drug users? That they are lazy, rely on artificial happiness through food, don't care about their appearance to others and live an unhealthy lifestyle that doesn't involve being active?
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US so it's not as if it doesn't hurt anyone, obviously the person who is over weight but also the stress placed on healthcare.
I'm not saying these are my views I'm just wondering how/if people can reconcile being prejudiced against someone that uses marijuana but not be the same for overweight people assuming the same reasoning for their prejudice could be applied(disapproval of a unhealthy lifestyle so therefore do not want to be around them).Things like hanging out with meth users is obviously dangerous / scary for good reasons so I'm focusing on the prejudice based upon what is seen as a chosen unhealthy life style. i think most people would be wrong http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2013703/Why-salt-addictive-It-stimulates-brain-cells-just-like-cigarettes-hard-drugs.html
He said "AS addictive". Obviously anything can be addictive, from drugs to exercise to chocolate.
The crucial difference between fatty foods and alcohol compared to hard drugs is that when used in moderation, they aren't detrimental to a person's health. Drugs on the other hand are always harmful. (I won't comment about marihuana because I really don't want to get into the "is marihuana bad" argument) Obesity is a massive problem in public health, but it's a very hard problem to solve, because you can't exactly ban fast food. A better solution is trying to make healthier food an easier and cheaper choice.
Smoking is a hard issue though. Smoking, even in moderation, has strong negative effects. The reason why it's legal is it became so widespread before it's negative effects were realized that it would not be feasible to ban it right now. However, with the amount of people smoking going down, someday in the future it might be banned with other drugs.
|
On October 18 2011 06:18 uiCk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 06:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 18 2011 05:25 Ayabara wrote:On October 18 2011 05:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 18 2011 04:42 Ayabara wrote:On October 18 2011 04:36 Haemonculus wrote:On October 18 2011 04:35 Ayabara wrote:On October 18 2011 04:32 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:On October 17 2011 11:34 Antoine wrote:
people don't choose to be black or female.
they choose to use drugs/smoke/drink etc
this is the critical difference.
to address your above post, at some point the person made the choice to start. ^ this. I am surprised no-one has made this distinction yet. A gay person isn't gay if they never decide to have gay sex. Therefore, being gay is a choice! Just like being an addict is a choice! Does that make people who are celibate not straight? o.O Sarcasm! Straight people are straight. Gay people are gay. Addicts are addicts. They are all predetermined conditions, that is to say, there is no choice to be made. An addict is an addict for life, from the moment they are born to the day they die, they will struggle with their condition. And in what world, exactly, can anyone live in where people will go through their entire life without ever using a drug? Alcohol, medicinal opiates, marijuana... they are all very prevalent and most people use them without every having an addiction problem. Only those who are prone to addiction will become addicted. But I guess no one ever should use any mind altering drugs just to be safe! Where's that Jackie Chan meme when you need it? Or is the confused psychologist one better? You don't choose to start your sexual orientation. You choose to take your first harmful drug. You don't come out of the womb with the fate that you're going to become a heroin addict, and that your life will be over no matter what. You still make the conscious decision to start heroin, and that is the reason why it's your fault you went down that path to destruction, and why your analogy makes zero sense. Maybe you get addicted, and the effect that drugs have on your body can't be helped by you. But you're still the idiot who tried them in the first place. You can't be a heroin addict if you never try heroin. If you're stupid enough to take the risk and try harmful drugs even once, be prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences (which include addiction). This isn't even remotely close to being gay, and I can't believe that you're saying "addiction and sexual orientation both have genetic components, so therefore addicts and gays can be equated." Worst. Non sequitur. Ever. (And I'm not saying that it's impossible for there to be benefits of drugs. I'm merely saying that if you're going to take the risk in doing drugs, you need to be prepared to deal with any consequences, including addiction. You're making the conscious decision to take part in this experimentation. On the other hand, you're the still gay, regardless of whether or not you do anything about it.) You clearly don't know anything about the science of addiction. It is a predetermined condition. It isn't a choice. And you don't find out until you are already addicted to something. Very few people try heroin, because its widely known that it can be extremely dangerous. Those that are willing to take the risk for the possible effect aren't "stupid." They desire the described effect for a reason. Heroin doesn't have a profound effect, really. It's far more subtle than alcohol. It makes one feel comfortable, the most comfortable you can imagine. Like, Christmas morning with the whole family by the fire in a blanket with hot chocolate level of comfort. Potential users seek the effect despite the threat that the use of the drug poses to their life because they are psychologically ill, not because they are 'stupid.' They are prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences because they don't care about them. They don't care about ruining their lives. All they care about is not feeling like shit anymore. Happy, stable, healthy people almost never try heroin. In fact, most hardcore addicts are usually victims of severe child abuse or childhood trauma. Most addicts suffered from depression long before they even began using, and pursued drugs because of that depression.And really, are you such an asshole that you would think someone is trash just because of one mistake? Trying a drug once and BAM their lives are fucked? Or would you hate them because they continue to use, even though overcoming addiction is one of the most difficult struggles a human can go through?
If so, you're a worse human being than any addict I've ever met. This is such a hypocritical post, compared to everyone else's thoughts, I just need to point this out. Everyone else is talking about how great drugs are, and I personally don't mind if drugs are legalized, because I don't think the government should have any say in what a person should or shouldn't do with their body, as long as they pay the consequences if they commit a crime under the influence. But now all of a sudden, drug users are all victims, and the only release they can get are drugs (which are apparently mistakes), and now I should feel compassion for those who are addicted to their solution (which they wanted anyway)? I certainly never said anything about thinking of them as trash, but they certainly made the decision to try something bad. If anything, you made it more clear that drug users are unintelligent people, if I'm supposed to take anything out of your post (although I don't know if I'm going to believe you or not, as plenty of people on TL seem to be rather smart, and have no problem with bragging about doing drugs). So I'll just say what I said before, in different words: Those of us who are well-educated know that certain drugs can be addictive and incredibly harmful. If you want to take them (for whatever reason), you do that, and hopefully that works out well for you and you don't end up addicted or hurt or dead. Do what you want, but people are going to judge you based on the decisions you make. That doesn't make them "assholes". what makes people assholes is that they assume a person is addicted to drugs, because they make "bad choices" without reasoning why those bad choices are made. Same way some people are like "LOL wtf, why dont you get a job you homeless bum" without realizing the person they are talking to most likley has mental imbalances that prevent him, or blind him, from making the "correct" choice. Sometimes its better not to say anything, then to give out your 2cents without any reason.
I think that's a good point. It's important to understand the background and circumstances surrounding people's decisions and lifestyles before formulating opinions about them.
|
Here's another:
"...Until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely.
And another:
"...but it is unclear to what extent these results apply to real- world driving."
I picked out the important bits for you!
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 18 2011 06:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 06:17 ahx wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 18 2011 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 05:58 ahx wrote:On October 18 2011 05:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 18 2011 05:15 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 05:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 18 2011 05:02 VPCursed wrote:On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote:
Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement! if i smoked pot right now. Who am i hurting? i suppose some of my family members might hurt cause my room will smell like pot for some time. but thats fine. We will get over it. Your post: "Who am I hurting" ::names people:: "We'll get over it." Oh okay then? But yes, pot is probably the least harmful drug (although any short-term effects that would alter your mind or body could harm others if you're dumb enough to drive a car while under the influence, just like driving drunk). Also, isn't doing drugs not a victimless crime because *you're* a victim? You're destroying your body (certainly with the harder drugs over a long period of time, ignoring milder things like marijuana)? As a lot of other people have already mentioned, and it really doesn't take a huge leap of common sense to see it... There are tons of legal ways to destroy your body, in must faster and more severe ways than ANY of the illegal drugs. Fatty Foods/Heart Disease, Cigarettes/Cancer. Obviously the government and general populace isn't against weed because it destroys your body.... herp derp Of course there are tons of legal ways to slowly destroy your body too. That's not what the topic is, so I don't appreciate the red herring. Let's try staying on topic now, thanks. What we're talking about here is illegal drugs. Doing illegal drugs harms your body as well, and so to say the crime is victimless is just wrong because you're a victim. That's merely the point I was making. You comparing legal and illegal ways to destroy your body doesn't make illegal drugs "victimless crimes". And I was careful to separate pot from other, more harmful drugs, so please note that eating a cheeseburger or smoking a cigarette and then getting behind the wheel of a car is not worthy of being arrested, because your mind isn't altered, whereas smoking pot (or doing something worse) is. herp derp yourself, try paying attention please. And you would know first hand at how dangerous it is to drive under the influence of weed, right? Because that's an argument. And I'm going to down a bottle of scotch before I know that driving drunk is bad too, right? Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 06:01 ryanAnger wrote:
If you had the presence of mind to do any amount of research before making outrageous claims, you'd realize that of all things that negatively impact your ability to drive, consumption of marijuana is one of the least detrimental.
It's called research, my friend. I never said that marijuana hurts your chances of driving moreso than any other illegal drug. But it absolutely hinders your driving ability. "A 2001 study by the United Kingdom Transit Research Laboratory (TRL) specifically focuses on the effects of cannabis use on driving,[37] and is one of the most recent and commonly quoted studies on the subject. The report summarizes current knowledge about the effects of cannabis on driving and accident risk based on a review of available literature published since 1994 and the effects of cannabis on laboratory based tasks. The study identified young males, amongst whom cannabis consumption is frequent and increasing, and in whom alcohol consumption is also common, as a risk group for traffic accidents. This is due to driving inexperience and factors associated with youth relating to risk taking, delinquency and motivation. These demographic and psychosocial variables may relate to both drug use and accident risk, thereby presenting an artificial relationship between use of drugs and accident involvement. The effects of cannabis on laboratory-based tasks show clear impairment with respect to tracking ability, attention, and other tasks depending on the dose administered. Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in: increased variability in lane position (such as taking a curve too tightly or too loosely). longer decision times, leading to slower responses to driving situations Kelly, Darke and Ross[38] show similar results, with laboratory studies examining the effects of cannabis on skills utilised while driving showing impairments in tracking, attention, reaction time, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, vigilance, time and distance perception, and decision making and concentration. An EMCDDA[39] review concluded that "the acute effect of moderate or higher doses of cannabis impairs the skills related to safe driving and injury risk", specifically "attention, tracking and psychomotor skills".[39] In their review of driving simulator studies, Kelly et al.[38] conclude that there is evidence of dose-dependent impairments in cannabis-affected drivers' ability to control a vehicle in the areas of steering, headway control, speed variability, car following, reaction time and lane positioning. The researchers note that "even in those who learn to compensate for a drug's impairing effects, substantial impairment in performance can still be observed under conditions of general task performance (i.e. when no contingencies are present to maintain compensated performance)."[39]" ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Effects_on_driving It's sooo nice to see that people know what they're talking about -.-' Yes.. it is an argument, you have no clue what you're talking about and for someone so "highly educated" you're pretty stupid. You ACTUALLY think wikipedia is a legitimate source for information? ... try again LOL Yes, please dismiss all the cited references, including The National Archives, Drug and Alcohol Review, and European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. This is really too much. Tons of documented evidence on that source (73 references on the entire page, to be exact), and that's not enough for you. Fine, not credible, should have had 74 or 75. Darn it. Here's another: "Effects on Driving: The drug manufacturer suggests that patients receiving treatment with Marinol® should be specifically warned not to drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely. Epidemiology data from road traffic arrests and fatalities indicate that after alcohol, marijuana is the most frequently detected psychoactive substance among driving populations. Marijuana has been shown to impair performance on driving simulator tasks and on open and closed driving courses for up to approximately 3 hours. Decreased car handling performance, increased reaction times, impaired time and distance estimation, inability to maintain headway, lateral travel, subjective sleepiness, motor incoordination, and impaired sustained vigilance have all been reported. Some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment. The greater the demands placed on the driver, however, the more critical the likely impairment. Marijuana may particularly impair monotonous and prolonged driving. Decision times to evaluate situations and determine appropriate responses increase. Mixing alcohol and marijuana may dramatically produce effects greater than either drug on its own." ~http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm And another: "Laboratory studies have shown that cannabis compromises reaction time, attention, decision making, time and distance perception, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, and concentration. These studies have the advantage of being able to test the effects of large doses of cannabis under controlled conditions, but it is unclear to what extent these results apply to real- world driving." ~http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/factsheets/article/cannabis-and-driving But now I'm just text-walling, and you guys aren't even reading any of this evidence anyway. It's really intellectually dishonest of you, actually. I don't mind people smoking pot. I hear it's fun. Just please don't smoke and drive
I'm fairly certain you've never gone to school at all. You are what is wrong with modern society.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 18 2011 06:24 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 06:19 Dranak wrote:On October 18 2011 06:11 SupLilSon wrote:
Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit. Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms. It really is shocking that people blindly accept cultural norms without ever thinking for themselves. If you don't see a problem with this then you would have loved Nazi Germany.
Really? Do you really want to compare drug use (which does have negative consequences of varying degrees) to the Holocaust? That comparison doesn't even make any reasonable amount of sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
