|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On May 22 2012 00:40 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 18:05 _Ice_ wrote:On May 20 2012 06:11 BlackJack wrote:
Is SYG even relevant at all in this case? All Stand Your Ground does is remove your "duty to retreat" before using deadly force. If Zimmerman was on the ground with Trayvon on top of him then he obviously couldn't retreat, so I don't see why it wouldn't be covered by normal self-defense laws. I don't think it even matters if Zimmerman was forced to the ground. You cannot just chase down some guy and then when he fights back, you shoot him dead. That is murder. So what if the person had stolen something? Isn't that reason to chase the person down? Zimmerman's reason for chasing Martin was based on the fact that there had been a string of thefts in the area committed by young African American men. I still think this is a case of manslaughter even with all the new evidence. Too much debateable "evidence" to label it either self-defense or full on murder. The fact remains that Martin is dead because of Zimmerman, and the evidence that is not debated suggests that this was not premeditated murder. Therefore, manslaughter is the most logical charge that should be leveled.
I agree that manslaughter is the highest charge you should be after seeing all the new eveidence.
But you're also aware that because someone is innocent until proven guilty that by saying something is debatable means that Zimmerman is still innocent. Because he hasn't been proven guilty. So even then manslaughter is a stretch, because you have to be absolutely sure that self-defense is not true.
|
Russian Federation396 Posts
On May 22 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 03:09 JitnikoVi wrote:On May 22 2012 02:58 Silvertine wrote:On May 19 2012 02:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent. the fact that he was on drugs supports zimmerman's story that he thought the kid was on drugs--part of the reason why he called the police. just more evidence that supports zimmerman's story. THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly. The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance, watch the video of him in the 7/11 the way hes acting is already suspicious, and i had indication of him being on some sort impairment then, and this was before i read that he had thc in his body at that same time. EDIT: not to mention he has just got suspended from school that week for having an empty baggie of weed on him, not making any solid statements, but if i was a 17 year old kid who didnt care about school and smoked weed id probably be smoking it on the days that i got kicked out of school and have nothing to do and am lonely and possibly depressed. Also, him being disadvantaged in a fight high states absolutely nothing, even if disadvantaged does that mean he cant cause bodily harm? Him being 17 has nothing to do with his tolerance. If you think age has something to do with tolerance, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I had friends at 13-14 that could out smoke an adult and still act more sober, age has NOTHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance. And yeah him being high doesn't affect whether he can kick someones ass or not, I do kickboxing / jiu jitsu high as a Georgia pine all the time and I do pretty damn well.
What i mean by a low tolerance is im assuming at 17 he has only recently started smoking, and not for years upon years, of course im saying this assuming that kids these days dont start smoking at 13-14. At the same time, you are mistaken, many factors are involved in your tolerance level of marijuana such as height, weight, age, metabolism, and amount smoked/ingested. So ya, age does have SOMETHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance.
|
On May 22 2012 02:58 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 02:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent. the fact that he was on drugs supports zimmerman's story that he thought the kid was on drugs--part of the reason why he called the police. just more evidence that supports zimmerman's story. THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly.
The only way to know whether or not he was high would be the autopsy. If the autopsy finds THC in his system it is more likely than not that he was high/had smoked sometime that day. As someone above mentioned a 17 year old kid is likely going to have a lower tolerance which would cause him to exhibit more outward symptoms of being stoned which could be having red eyes, smelling like smoke, or just walking in some strange manner. You don't have to "appear physically impaired" for someone to suspect you are high.
However that by no means gives anyone the right to follow/confront a random stranger no matter how strangley they're acting. Especially if they are just minding their own business.
I think a lot of people completely miss the point of this case though. Shouldn't really have anything to do with Trayvon being black. The only thing that should matter is whether or not Zimmerman was within his legal rights at the moment of the shooting to do what he did. I really don't see how race figures into this at all.
|
On May 22 2012 03:41 JitnikoVi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:On May 22 2012 03:09 JitnikoVi wrote:On May 22 2012 02:58 Silvertine wrote:On May 19 2012 02:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent. the fact that he was on drugs supports zimmerman's story that he thought the kid was on drugs--part of the reason why he called the police. just more evidence that supports zimmerman's story. THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly. The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance, watch the video of him in the 7/11 the way hes acting is already suspicious, and i had indication of him being on some sort impairment then, and this was before i read that he had thc in his body at that same time. EDIT: not to mention he has just got suspended from school that week for having an empty baggie of weed on him, not making any solid statements, but if i was a 17 year old kid who didnt care about school and smoked weed id probably be smoking it on the days that i got kicked out of school and have nothing to do and am lonely and possibly depressed. Also, him being disadvantaged in a fight high states absolutely nothing, even if disadvantaged does that mean he cant cause bodily harm? Him being 17 has nothing to do with his tolerance. If you think age has something to do with tolerance, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I had friends at 13-14 that could out smoke an adult and still act more sober, age has NOTHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance. And yeah him being high doesn't affect whether he can kick someones ass or not, I do kickboxing / jiu jitsu high as a Georgia pine all the time and I do pretty damn well. What i mean by a low tolerance is im assuming at 17 he has only recently started smoking, and not for years upon years, of course im saying this assuming that kids these days dont start smoking at 13-14. At the same time, you are mistaken, many factors are involved in your tolerance level of marijuana such as height, weight, age, metabolism, and amount smoked/ingested. So ya, age does have SOMETHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance.
No it doesn't. You're just simply wrong. Height? Weight? Metabolism? amount smoked ingested? I completely agree with.
But age? Yeah no, thats just wrong. His tolerance would be affected by when he STARTED smoking, or how OFTEN he smokes. Not his AGE.
Theres nothing in the adult brain that automatically makes you more tolerant to drugs than a 17 year old.
If there is, please go ahead and show the peer reviewed studies, id love the read.
" THC in his system it is more likely than not that he was high/had smoked sometime that day. As someone above mentioned a 17 year old kid is likely going to have a lower tolerance which would cause him to exhibit more outward symptoms of being stoned which could be having red eyes, smelling like smoke, or just walking in some strange manner. You don't have to "appear physically impaired" for someone to suspect you are high."
Thats just wrong, please don't just spout information because you feel like it.
THC lasts a long time in the body, it would depend on the amounts, not whether or not it was in his system -.-
A 17 year old is likely to have a lower tolerance? Based on what scientific studies exactly? Most kids I knew started smoking from 12-16. Any of the kids smoking from age 12 throws your horrible argument out the window.
Also lower tolerance affecting whether your eyes are more red or not? Whether you smell like smoke more or not? You really have no clue what you're talking about either.
When you become more tolerant of marijuana, you don't just gain super powers to not have red eyes and not smell like smoke, thats just ridiculous.
As for walking funny on marijuana, thats a definite possibility XD (for anyone of any age with any tolerance level, once again, depends how much you smoked =) my argument here is simply age doesn't affect it, it really doesn't.)
|
Russian Federation396 Posts
On May 22 2012 03:42 Swagasaurus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 02:58 Silvertine wrote:On May 19 2012 02:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent. the fact that he was on drugs supports zimmerman's story that he thought the kid was on drugs--part of the reason why he called the police. just more evidence that supports zimmerman's story. THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly. The only way to know whether or not he was high would be the autopsy. If the autopsy finds THC in his system it is more likely than not that he was high/had smoked sometime that day. As someone above mentioned a 17 year old kid is likely going to have a lower tolerance which would cause him to exhibit more outward symptoms of being stoned which could be having red eyes, smelling like smoke, or just walking in some strange manner. You don't have to "appear physically impaired" for someone to suspect you are high. However that by no means gives anyone the right to follow/confront a random stranger no matter how strangley they're acting. Especially if they are just minding their own business. I think a lot of people completely miss the point of this case though. Shouldn't really have anything to do with Trayvon being black. The only thing that should matter is whether or not Zimmerman was within his legal rights at the moment of the shooting to do what he did. I really don't see how race figures into this at all.
Although he doesnt have the 'right' to follow a stranger no matter how they're acting, keep in mind he was the neighbourhood 'chief', and so he has been for a long time and actually making progress in the neighbourhood, nonetheless, im sure he saw some responsibility in that case and felt a surge of loyalty for this position and followed through with it.
As for Martin being black, thats just purely for public purposes.
|
On May 22 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 03:09 JitnikoVi wrote:On May 22 2012 02:58 Silvertine wrote:On May 19 2012 02:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent. the fact that he was on drugs supports zimmerman's story that he thought the kid was on drugs--part of the reason why he called the police. just more evidence that supports zimmerman's story. THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly. The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance, watch the video of him in the 7/11 the way hes acting is already suspicious, and i had indication of him being on some sort impairment then, and this was before i read that he had thc in his body at that same time. EDIT: not to mention he has just got suspended from school that week for having an empty baggie of weed on him, not making any solid statements, but if i was a 17 year old kid who didnt care about school and smoked weed id probably be smoking it on the days that i got kicked out of school and have nothing to do and am lonely and possibly depressed. Also, him being disadvantaged in a fight high states absolutely nothing, even if disadvantaged does that mean he cant cause bodily harm? Him being 17 has nothing to do with his tolerance. If you think age has something to do with tolerance, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I had friends at 13-14 that could out smoke an adult and still act more sober, age has NOTHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance. And yeah him being high doesn't affect whether he can kick someones ass or not, I do kickboxing / jiu jitsu high as a Georgia pine all the time and I do pretty damn well.
Obviously age doesn't directly affect someone's tolerance but it's assumed that someone under the age of 18 is going to be a less frequent smoker, which does affect tolerance. Things like parental supervision, less access to money, less access to dealers, etc. are causes of this.
Just because you experienced something one way doesn't mean that it's like that all the time for everyone.
|
On May 22 2012 03:53 Swagasaurus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:On May 22 2012 03:09 JitnikoVi wrote:On May 22 2012 02:58 Silvertine wrote:On May 19 2012 02:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent. the fact that he was on drugs supports zimmerman's story that he thought the kid was on drugs--part of the reason why he called the police. just more evidence that supports zimmerman's story. THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly. The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance, watch the video of him in the 7/11 the way hes acting is already suspicious, and i had indication of him being on some sort impairment then, and this was before i read that he had thc in his body at that same time. EDIT: not to mention he has just got suspended from school that week for having an empty baggie of weed on him, not making any solid statements, but if i was a 17 year old kid who didnt care about school and smoked weed id probably be smoking it on the days that i got kicked out of school and have nothing to do and am lonely and possibly depressed. Also, him being disadvantaged in a fight high states absolutely nothing, even if disadvantaged does that mean he cant cause bodily harm? Him being 17 has nothing to do with his tolerance. If you think age has something to do with tolerance, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I had friends at 13-14 that could out smoke an adult and still act more sober, age has NOTHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance. And yeah him being high doesn't affect whether he can kick someones ass or not, I do kickboxing / jiu jitsu high as a Georgia pine all the time and I do pretty damn well. Obviously age doesn't directly affect someone's tolerance but it's assumed that someone under the age of 18 is going to be a less frequent smoker, which does affect tolerance. Things like parental supervision, less access to money, less access to dealers, etc. are causes of this. Just because you experienced something one way doesn't mean that it's like that all the time for everyone.
Ok so you agree with me then, thank you. Age doesn't affect someones tolerance. Exactly!
Also as a kid, the things you listed in the end are completely irrelevant.
Parental supervision? Just smoke when you're out with friends, most parents are cool with you being out most of the day, they just want you home a reasonable time. Leave, smoke, hangout, sober up, go home. Did it all the time.
Less access to money? I had no bills to pay as a kid. I got money from family, and I shared with friends.
Less access to dealers? I actually had the same amount of access to dealers. Getting weed as a kid is extremely easy, just ask someone that you know smokes, wait a while, bam you have weed! Getting alcohol as a kid is harder honestly, trying to find someone to risk it or someone old enough that would let you was a lot more difficult.
Access to dealers is really simple for anyone at any age really. Just ask someone you know...
|
Russian Federation396 Posts
On May 22 2012 03:45 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 03:41 JitnikoVi wrote:On May 22 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:On May 22 2012 03:09 JitnikoVi wrote:On May 22 2012 02:58 Silvertine wrote:On May 19 2012 02:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent. the fact that he was on drugs supports zimmerman's story that he thought the kid was on drugs--part of the reason why he called the police. just more evidence that supports zimmerman's story. THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly. The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance, watch the video of him in the 7/11 the way hes acting is already suspicious, and i had indication of him being on some sort impairment then, and this was before i read that he had thc in his body at that same time. EDIT: not to mention he has just got suspended from school that week for having an empty baggie of weed on him, not making any solid statements, but if i was a 17 year old kid who didnt care about school and smoked weed id probably be smoking it on the days that i got kicked out of school and have nothing to do and am lonely and possibly depressed. Also, him being disadvantaged in a fight high states absolutely nothing, even if disadvantaged does that mean he cant cause bodily harm? Him being 17 has nothing to do with his tolerance. If you think age has something to do with tolerance, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I had friends at 13-14 that could out smoke an adult and still act more sober, age has NOTHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance. And yeah him being high doesn't affect whether he can kick someones ass or not, I do kickboxing / jiu jitsu high as a Georgia pine all the time and I do pretty damn well. What i mean by a low tolerance is im assuming at 17 he has only recently started smoking, and not for years upon years, of course im saying this assuming that kids these days dont start smoking at 13-14. At the same time, you are mistaken, many factors are involved in your tolerance level of marijuana such as height, weight, age, metabolism, and amount smoked/ingested. So ya, age does have SOMETHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance. No it doesn't. You're just simply wrong. Height? Weight? Metabolism? amount smoked ingested? I completely agree with. But age? Yeah no, thats just wrong. His tolerance would be affected by when he STARTED smoking, or how OFTEN he smokes. Not his AGE. Theres nothing in the adult brain that automatically makes you more tolerant to drugs than a 17 year old. If there is, please go ahead and show the peer reviewed studies, id love the read.
Finding hard facts about almost anything with marijuana is difficult, this is the only one I can find thats somewhat relatable.
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/335/2/294.full
From the abstract:
"Adolescence is a well defined developmental period during which marijuana use is common. However, little is known about the response to marijuana in adolescents compared with adults. We have shown previously that adolescent rats are more impaired than adults by Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive compound in marijuana"
if this doesnt convince you, then i wont be able to find anything else that does, at the same time, id like you to prove me wrong on this. so far you've stated primary sources, all of which are completely useless, not being rude, but realistically speaking, if its not cited then its not a good source.
|
On May 22 2012 03:54 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 03:53 Swagasaurus wrote:On May 22 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:On May 22 2012 03:09 JitnikoVi wrote:On May 22 2012 02:58 Silvertine wrote:On May 19 2012 02:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent. the fact that he was on drugs supports zimmerman's story that he thought the kid was on drugs--part of the reason why he called the police. just more evidence that supports zimmerman's story. THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly. The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance, watch the video of him in the 7/11 the way hes acting is already suspicious, and i had indication of him being on some sort impairment then, and this was before i read that he had thc in his body at that same time. EDIT: not to mention he has just got suspended from school that week for having an empty baggie of weed on him, not making any solid statements, but if i was a 17 year old kid who didnt care about school and smoked weed id probably be smoking it on the days that i got kicked out of school and have nothing to do and am lonely and possibly depressed. Also, him being disadvantaged in a fight high states absolutely nothing, even if disadvantaged does that mean he cant cause bodily harm? Him being 17 has nothing to do with his tolerance. If you think age has something to do with tolerance, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I had friends at 13-14 that could out smoke an adult and still act more sober, age has NOTHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance. And yeah him being high doesn't affect whether he can kick someones ass or not, I do kickboxing / jiu jitsu high as a Georgia pine all the time and I do pretty damn well. Obviously age doesn't directly affect someone's tolerance but it's assumed that someone under the age of 18 is going to be a less frequent smoker, which does affect tolerance. Things like parental supervision, less access to money, less access to dealers, etc. are causes of this. Just because you experienced something one way doesn't mean that it's like that all the time for everyone. Ok so you agree with me then, thank you. Age doesn't affect someones tolerance. Exactly!
I do agree that age doesn't directly affect tolerance but that's not what you said. You said that age had nothing to do with it, which it does, like I previously explained. Maybe you should have worded your sentence more clearly.
Also to add on to what JitnikoVi just said here is a graph: http://www.alcohol-and-drug-guide.com/marijuana-use-usa.html
|
On May 22 2012 04:03 Swagasaurus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 03:54 PanN wrote:On May 22 2012 03:53 Swagasaurus wrote:On May 22 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:On May 22 2012 03:09 JitnikoVi wrote:On May 22 2012 02:58 Silvertine wrote:On May 19 2012 02:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent. the fact that he was on drugs supports zimmerman's story that he thought the kid was on drugs--part of the reason why he called the police. just more evidence that supports zimmerman's story. THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly. The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance, watch the video of him in the 7/11 the way hes acting is already suspicious, and i had indication of him being on some sort impairment then, and this was before i read that he had thc in his body at that same time. EDIT: not to mention he has just got suspended from school that week for having an empty baggie of weed on him, not making any solid statements, but if i was a 17 year old kid who didnt care about school and smoked weed id probably be smoking it on the days that i got kicked out of school and have nothing to do and am lonely and possibly depressed. Also, him being disadvantaged in a fight high states absolutely nothing, even if disadvantaged does that mean he cant cause bodily harm? Him being 17 has nothing to do with his tolerance. If you think age has something to do with tolerance, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I had friends at 13-14 that could out smoke an adult and still act more sober, age has NOTHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance. And yeah him being high doesn't affect whether he can kick someones ass or not, I do kickboxing / jiu jitsu high as a Georgia pine all the time and I do pretty damn well. Obviously age doesn't directly affect someone's tolerance but it's assumed that someone under the age of 18 is going to be a less frequent smoker, which does affect tolerance. Things like parental supervision, less access to money, less access to dealers, etc. are causes of this. Just because you experienced something one way doesn't mean that it's like that all the time for everyone. Ok so you agree with me then, thank you. Age doesn't affect someones tolerance. Exactly! I do agree that age doesn't directly affect tolerance but that's not what you said. You said that age had nothing to do with it, which it does, like I previously explained. Maybe you should have worded your sentence more clearly. Also to add on to what JitnikoVi just said here is a graph: http://www.alcohol-and-drug-guide.com/marijuana-use-usa.html
"Him being 17 has nothing to do with his tolerance."
I thought that was pretty clear sorry.
But yeah, I don't believe it affects your tolerance, I've never seen anything that suggests it does. (Jit's link talks about impairment with different age groups, that was really interesting to read thank you. I'm talking about age affecting general tolerance though. Sorry for the confusion.)
|
On May 22 2012 03:54 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 03:53 Swagasaurus wrote:On May 22 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:On May 22 2012 03:09 JitnikoVi wrote:On May 22 2012 02:58 Silvertine wrote:On May 19 2012 02:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent. the fact that he was on drugs supports zimmerman's story that he thought the kid was on drugs--part of the reason why he called the police. just more evidence that supports zimmerman's story. THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly. The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance, watch the video of him in the 7/11 the way hes acting is already suspicious, and i had indication of him being on some sort impairment then, and this was before i read that he had thc in his body at that same time. EDIT: not to mention he has just got suspended from school that week for having an empty baggie of weed on him, not making any solid statements, but if i was a 17 year old kid who didnt care about school and smoked weed id probably be smoking it on the days that i got kicked out of school and have nothing to do and am lonely and possibly depressed. Also, him being disadvantaged in a fight high states absolutely nothing, even if disadvantaged does that mean he cant cause bodily harm? Him being 17 has nothing to do with his tolerance. If you think age has something to do with tolerance, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I had friends at 13-14 that could out smoke an adult and still act more sober, age has NOTHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance. And yeah him being high doesn't affect whether he can kick someones ass or not, I do kickboxing / jiu jitsu high as a Georgia pine all the time and I do pretty damn well. Obviously age doesn't directly affect someone's tolerance but it's assumed that someone under the age of 18 is going to be a less frequent smoker, which does affect tolerance. Things like parental supervision, less access to money, less access to dealers, etc. are causes of this. Just because you experienced something one way doesn't mean that it's like that all the time for everyone. Ok so you agree with me then, thank you. Age doesn't affect someones tolerance. Exactly! Also as a kid, the things you listed in the end are completely irrelevant. Parental supervision? Just smoke when you're out with friends, most parents are cool with you being out most of the day, they just want you home a reasonable time. Leave, smoke, hangout, sober up, go home. Did it all the time. Less access to money? I had no bills to pay as a kid. I got money from family, and I shared with friends. Less access to dealers? I actually had the same amount of access to dealers. Getting weed as a kid is extremely easy, just ask someone that you know smokes, wait a while, bam you have weed! Getting alcohol as a kid is harder honestly, trying to find someone to risk it or someone old enough that would let you was a lot more difficult. Access to dealers is really simple for anyone at any age really. Just ask someone you know...
Again, just because your parents treated you a certain way doesn't mean that it's like that for everyone. This isn't about the 14 year old version of you it's about a 17 year old kid from Florida who you never met. I'm having a hard time understanding why you want to base your knowledge of the world off of your personal life.
And I do smoke, look at my post history I like to post in the high thread occasionally 
|
On May 22 2012 03:56 JitnikoVi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 03:45 PanN wrote:On May 22 2012 03:41 JitnikoVi wrote:On May 22 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:On May 22 2012 03:09 JitnikoVi wrote:On May 22 2012 02:58 Silvertine wrote:On May 19 2012 02:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent. the fact that he was on drugs supports zimmerman's story that he thought the kid was on drugs--part of the reason why he called the police. just more evidence that supports zimmerman's story. THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly. The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance, watch the video of him in the 7/11 the way hes acting is already suspicious, and i had indication of him being on some sort impairment then, and this was before i read that he had thc in his body at that same time. EDIT: not to mention he has just got suspended from school that week for having an empty baggie of weed on him, not making any solid statements, but if i was a 17 year old kid who didnt care about school and smoked weed id probably be smoking it on the days that i got kicked out of school and have nothing to do and am lonely and possibly depressed. Also, him being disadvantaged in a fight high states absolutely nothing, even if disadvantaged does that mean he cant cause bodily harm? Him being 17 has nothing to do with his tolerance. If you think age has something to do with tolerance, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I had friends at 13-14 that could out smoke an adult and still act more sober, age has NOTHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance. And yeah him being high doesn't affect whether he can kick someones ass or not, I do kickboxing / jiu jitsu high as a Georgia pine all the time and I do pretty damn well. What i mean by a low tolerance is im assuming at 17 he has only recently started smoking, and not for years upon years, of course im saying this assuming that kids these days dont start smoking at 13-14. At the same time, you are mistaken, many factors are involved in your tolerance level of marijuana such as height, weight, age, metabolism, and amount smoked/ingested. So ya, age does have SOMETHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance. No it doesn't. You're just simply wrong. Height? Weight? Metabolism? amount smoked ingested? I completely agree with. But age? Yeah no, thats just wrong. His tolerance would be affected by when he STARTED smoking, or how OFTEN he smokes. Not his AGE. Theres nothing in the adult brain that automatically makes you more tolerant to drugs than a 17 year old. If there is, please go ahead and show the peer reviewed studies, id love the read. Finding hard facts about almost anything with marijuana is difficult, this is the only one I can find thats somewhat relatable. http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/335/2/294.fullFrom the abstract: "Adolescence is a well defined developmental period during which marijuana use is common. However, little is known about the response to marijuana in adolescents compared with adults. We have shown previously that adolescent rats are more impaired than adults by Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive compound in marijuana" if this doesnt convince you, then i wont be able to find anything else that does, at the same time, id like you to prove me wrong on this. so far you've stated primary sources, all of which are completely useless, not being rude, but realistically speaking, if its not cited then its not a good source.
You really should actually read the paper or even the full abstract. More impaired in memory/learning, not motor function. A lot of things effect memory/learning during adolescene. That is one of the worst (but most convienient) categories to do a study like that on.
Edit:
Also this is kind of more relevant to the discussion.
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v33/n5/abs/1301475a.html
|
On May 22 2012 04:09 Swagasaurus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 03:54 PanN wrote:On May 22 2012 03:53 Swagasaurus wrote:On May 22 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:On May 22 2012 03:09 JitnikoVi wrote:On May 22 2012 02:58 Silvertine wrote:On May 19 2012 02:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent. the fact that he was on drugs supports zimmerman's story that he thought the kid was on drugs--part of the reason why he called the police. just more evidence that supports zimmerman's story. THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly. The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance, watch the video of him in the 7/11 the way hes acting is already suspicious, and i had indication of him being on some sort impairment then, and this was before i read that he had thc in his body at that same time. EDIT: not to mention he has just got suspended from school that week for having an empty baggie of weed on him, not making any solid statements, but if i was a 17 year old kid who didnt care about school and smoked weed id probably be smoking it on the days that i got kicked out of school and have nothing to do and am lonely and possibly depressed. Also, him being disadvantaged in a fight high states absolutely nothing, even if disadvantaged does that mean he cant cause bodily harm? Him being 17 has nothing to do with his tolerance. If you think age has something to do with tolerance, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I had friends at 13-14 that could out smoke an adult and still act more sober, age has NOTHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance. And yeah him being high doesn't affect whether he can kick someones ass or not, I do kickboxing / jiu jitsu high as a Georgia pine all the time and I do pretty damn well. Obviously age doesn't directly affect someone's tolerance but it's assumed that someone under the age of 18 is going to be a less frequent smoker, which does affect tolerance. Things like parental supervision, less access to money, less access to dealers, etc. are causes of this. Just because you experienced something one way doesn't mean that it's like that all the time for everyone. Ok so you agree with me then, thank you. Age doesn't affect someones tolerance. Exactly! Also as a kid, the things you listed in the end are completely irrelevant. Parental supervision? Just smoke when you're out with friends, most parents are cool with you being out most of the day, they just want you home a reasonable time. Leave, smoke, hangout, sober up, go home. Did it all the time. Less access to money? I had no bills to pay as a kid. I got money from family, and I shared with friends. Less access to dealers? I actually had the same amount of access to dealers. Getting weed as a kid is extremely easy, just ask someone that you know smokes, wait a while, bam you have weed! Getting alcohol as a kid is harder honestly, trying to find someone to risk it or someone old enough that would let you was a lot more difficult. Access to dealers is really simple for anyone at any age really. Just ask someone you know... Again, just because your parents treated you a certain way doesn't mean that it's like that for everyone. This isn't about the 14 year old version of you it's about a 17 year old kid from Florida who you never met. I'm having a hard time understanding why you want to base your knowledge of the world off of your personal life. And I do smoke, look at my post history I like to post in the high thread occasionally
I know, I'm just saying thats how it was for me. I'm not saying its that way for everyone, if it comes off that way I don't mean it.
Even if I had no money, and could rarely go out. My point of getting weed is easy as a kid still stands..
I'm sorry I'm not writing this out clearly enough, I'll try again.
The original quote. The only thing I'm going to argue about.
"The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance"
He automatically assumed because he's 17 he automatically has a low tolerance to weed. Which I believe is wrong. He has no idea what his tolerance is because he has no idea how often he smoked. Thats all I was trying to say man, sorry if it seemed off =)
|
Russian Federation396 Posts
On May 22 2012 04:14 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 04:09 Swagasaurus wrote:On May 22 2012 03:54 PanN wrote:On May 22 2012 03:53 Swagasaurus wrote:On May 22 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:On May 22 2012 03:09 JitnikoVi wrote:On May 22 2012 02:58 Silvertine wrote:On May 19 2012 02:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent. the fact that he was on drugs supports zimmerman's story that he thought the kid was on drugs--part of the reason why he called the police. just more evidence that supports zimmerman's story. THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly. The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance, watch the video of him in the 7/11 the way hes acting is already suspicious, and i had indication of him being on some sort impairment then, and this was before i read that he had thc in his body at that same time. EDIT: not to mention he has just got suspended from school that week for having an empty baggie of weed on him, not making any solid statements, but if i was a 17 year old kid who didnt care about school and smoked weed id probably be smoking it on the days that i got kicked out of school and have nothing to do and am lonely and possibly depressed. Also, him being disadvantaged in a fight high states absolutely nothing, even if disadvantaged does that mean he cant cause bodily harm? Him being 17 has nothing to do with his tolerance. If you think age has something to do with tolerance, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I had friends at 13-14 that could out smoke an adult and still act more sober, age has NOTHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance. And yeah him being high doesn't affect whether he can kick someones ass or not, I do kickboxing / jiu jitsu high as a Georgia pine all the time and I do pretty damn well. Obviously age doesn't directly affect someone's tolerance but it's assumed that someone under the age of 18 is going to be a less frequent smoker, which does affect tolerance. Things like parental supervision, less access to money, less access to dealers, etc. are causes of this. Just because you experienced something one way doesn't mean that it's like that all the time for everyone. Ok so you agree with me then, thank you. Age doesn't affect someones tolerance. Exactly! Also as a kid, the things you listed in the end are completely irrelevant. Parental supervision? Just smoke when you're out with friends, most parents are cool with you being out most of the day, they just want you home a reasonable time. Leave, smoke, hangout, sober up, go home. Did it all the time. Less access to money? I had no bills to pay as a kid. I got money from family, and I shared with friends. Less access to dealers? I actually had the same amount of access to dealers. Getting weed as a kid is extremely easy, just ask someone that you know smokes, wait a while, bam you have weed! Getting alcohol as a kid is harder honestly, trying to find someone to risk it or someone old enough that would let you was a lot more difficult. Access to dealers is really simple for anyone at any age really. Just ask someone you know... Again, just because your parents treated you a certain way doesn't mean that it's like that for everyone. This isn't about the 14 year old version of you it's about a 17 year old kid from Florida who you never met. I'm having a hard time understanding why you want to base your knowledge of the world off of your personal life. And I do smoke, look at my post history I like to post in the high thread occasionally "The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance" He automatically assumed because he's 17 he automatically has a low tolerance to weed. Which I believe is wrong. He has no idea what his tolerance is because he has no idea how often he smoked. Thats all I was trying to say man, sorry if it seemed off =)
To which i immediately reworded myself and made it clearer
"What i mean by a low tolerance is im assuming at 17 he has only recently started smoking, and not for years upon years, of course im saying this assuming that kids these days dont start smoking at 13-14."
then you went on about how u need proof, etc.
|
Russian Federation396 Posts
|
This drug thing you guys are debating would be instantly silenced as speculation. It doesn't prove anything, one way or the other, except to POSSIBLY give credibility to "he looks like he's on drugs or something"
But really, that lines doesn't matter, as that is probably the most dismissable and least important reasons Zimmerman took an interest in Trayvon. (Night, Rain, etc etc.)
|
Russian Federation396 Posts
Judicators link is much better then mine,
and as i stated, it was difficult to find something relative to it as proving anything related to marijuana is difficult. I read the abstract, and posted it, stating "if this doesnt convince you, i cant find anything else that can".
EDIT: double posted, deleted the first one.
|
In that video of Trayvon buying the Skittles and Iced Tea at the convenient store, he had his hoodie up over his head. Is it so unreasonable to expect that people don't appear as if they are trying to conceal their identity and when their identity is concealed that perhaps it's reasonable that others view them as suspicious ? I'm not saying Trayvon should have been walking in the rain with his hood not covering his head, but the outcry about people in hoodies being 'profiled' is a bit much for me. The hoods conceal identity and when you're not in a place where it's reasonable to have the hood over your head (walking in the rain), then took your damn hood down.
The case about the returning army guy that got jumped a bit ago comes to mind. One thing I noticed was they were all wearing hoodies. Is it so unreasonable to be suspicious of hoodies ?
|
Russian Federation396 Posts
On May 22 2012 04:36 Kaitlin wrote:
In that video of Trayvon buying the Skittles and Iced Tea at the convenient store, he had his hoodie up over his head. Is it so unreasonable to expect that people don't appear as if they are trying to conceal their identity and when their identity is concealed that perhaps it's reasonable that others view them as suspicious ? I'm not saying Trayvon should have been walking in the rain with his hood not covering his head, but the outcry about people in hoodies being 'profiled' is a bit much for me. The hoods conceal identity and when you're not in a place where it's reasonable to have the hood over your head (walking in the rain), then took your damn hood down.
The case about the returning army guy that got jumped a bit ago comes to mind. One thing I noticed was they were all wearing hoodies. Is it so unreasonable to be suspicious of hoodies ?
I agree with you, although my opinion means little, I always make sure to take off my hood if its raining when i enter a house, a store, the roof of a gas station. At the same time, what makes the situation at hand even worse, was that it was nighttime outside as well, primetime for suspicious activity, and he made no effort to remove that from himself. Of course its not necessary, but it definitely is helpful.
EDIT: Also should've mentioned that a convience store is like the #1 place to get mugged, and draws the most suspicion the fastest, if your going to take your hood off anywhere, let it be a convience store!
|
On May 22 2012 04:19 JitnikoVi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 04:14 PanN wrote:On May 22 2012 04:09 Swagasaurus wrote:On May 22 2012 03:54 PanN wrote:On May 22 2012 03:53 Swagasaurus wrote:On May 22 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:On May 22 2012 03:09 JitnikoVi wrote:On May 22 2012 02:58 Silvertine wrote:On May 19 2012 02:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent. the fact that he was on drugs supports zimmerman's story that he thought the kid was on drugs--part of the reason why he called the police. just more evidence that supports zimmerman's story. THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly. The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance, watch the video of him in the 7/11 the way hes acting is already suspicious, and i had indication of him being on some sort impairment then, and this was before i read that he had thc in his body at that same time. EDIT: not to mention he has just got suspended from school that week for having an empty baggie of weed on him, not making any solid statements, but if i was a 17 year old kid who didnt care about school and smoked weed id probably be smoking it on the days that i got kicked out of school and have nothing to do and am lonely and possibly depressed. Also, him being disadvantaged in a fight high states absolutely nothing, even if disadvantaged does that mean he cant cause bodily harm? Him being 17 has nothing to do with his tolerance. If you think age has something to do with tolerance, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I had friends at 13-14 that could out smoke an adult and still act more sober, age has NOTHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance. And yeah him being high doesn't affect whether he can kick someones ass or not, I do kickboxing / jiu jitsu high as a Georgia pine all the time and I do pretty damn well. Obviously age doesn't directly affect someone's tolerance but it's assumed that someone under the age of 18 is going to be a less frequent smoker, which does affect tolerance. Things like parental supervision, less access to money, less access to dealers, etc. are causes of this. Just because you experienced something one way doesn't mean that it's like that all the time for everyone. Ok so you agree with me then, thank you. Age doesn't affect someones tolerance. Exactly! Also as a kid, the things you listed in the end are completely irrelevant. Parental supervision? Just smoke when you're out with friends, most parents are cool with you being out most of the day, they just want you home a reasonable time. Leave, smoke, hangout, sober up, go home. Did it all the time. Less access to money? I had no bills to pay as a kid. I got money from family, and I shared with friends. Less access to dealers? I actually had the same amount of access to dealers. Getting weed as a kid is extremely easy, just ask someone that you know smokes, wait a while, bam you have weed! Getting alcohol as a kid is harder honestly, trying to find someone to risk it or someone old enough that would let you was a lot more difficult. Access to dealers is really simple for anyone at any age really. Just ask someone you know... Again, just because your parents treated you a certain way doesn't mean that it's like that for everyone. This isn't about the 14 year old version of you it's about a 17 year old kid from Florida who you never met. I'm having a hard time understanding why you want to base your knowledge of the world off of your personal life. And I do smoke, look at my post history I like to post in the high thread occasionally "The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance" He automatically assumed because he's 17 he automatically has a low tolerance to weed. Which I believe is wrong. He has no idea what his tolerance is because he has no idea how often he smoked. Thats all I was trying to say man, sorry if it seemed off =) To which i immediately reworded myself and made it clearer "What i mean by a low tolerance is im assuming at 17 he has only recently started smoking, and not for years upon years, of course im saying this assuming that kids these days dont start smoking at 13-14."then you went on about how u need proof, etc.
Yeah, and then in the rest of the quote you said
"... At the same time, you are mistaken, many factors are involved in your tolerance level of marijuana such as height, weight, age, metabolism, and amount smoked/ingested. So ya, age does have SOMETHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance."
Thats why I went on about proof, I just worded my self badly and went on when I didn't realize we agreed, I apologize =)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
