|
On September 03 2012 04:56 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 04:53 Sroobz wrote:On September 03 2012 04:51 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:50 Sroobz wrote:On September 03 2012 04:47 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 04:45 Sroobz wrote:On September 03 2012 04:44 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:42 Tewks44 wrote:On September 03 2012 04:40 Ogww wrote:On September 03 2012 04:36 OmiDeLta wrote:
[quote]
Once they started, they changed drastically. The correllation was obvious. And please do not take a jab at my father, he IS well-respected and has taught me much. It hurt me badly to see what happened to my friends - all they wanted to do was be high, they didn't want to go out and do what we usually did anymore - no more lazer tag, no more Magic: The Gathering get-togethers, they didn't even want to play games online. That was when I started asking my father and therapist questions. If you want, I can get the sources my therapist uses but unfortunately that will have to wait until Tuesday; I'm sorry, there is nothing I can do about that. Too bad for your argument that correlation doesn't imply causality. correlation DOES imply causality. Correlation doesn't CONFIRM causality, but it does IMPLY causality. If we followed your logic than there would be absolutely no purpose of scientific studies because scientific studies are based around identifying correlations and extrapolating whether or not it is due to causation or not. People are so eager to say correlation doesn't imply causation as if correlation excludes any possibility of causation, which is the exact opposite of what correlation suggests. Oh my goodness. A rational person. -clings to you- Be my friend. Why do you think I asked questions? Correllation implied causality, which was why I asked questions and later got them confirmed. Are you kidding? Tewks44 post is just nonsense that literally talks about nothing. yeah but he talks nonsense that supports OmiDeLta's "argument" OMG! A rational person -clings to you- be my friend! Seriously though, I smoke weed regularly and I still get 4.0s in college (always have). I still have a girlfriend (long-distance) and I have never beaten her (hey alcoholics). My family and I still get along well. I have a ton of friends that drink and smoke. Omg weed ruined my life. Mocking people isn't nice, you know. Your new found friend that you cling to insulted someone in a video without any support... I bashed Joe Rogan for believing in absurdities such as grand conspiracy theories, ancient aliens, super advanced civilizations that existed 10,000 years ago, among many others. Any support can be found in a number of his podcasts. However, I do admit that was an ad-hominen attack, and therefore irrelevant, it is still hard for me to take Joe Rogan seriously.
Joe Rogan has always maintained an agonostic position on all the theories he talks about on his podcast, he doesn't believe anything, he just likes to explore crazy shit, doesn't mean he thinks that it is true.
|
On September 03 2012 04:59 OmiDeLta wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 04:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:
isn't the whole stoner culture thing to live and let live? why all the anger? one guy says its the devil, another guy says its heaven, another guy says "i'm high as shit balls."
whats the problem here? i mean, i'm all for the argument and all, and analyzing and what not, but let's try to keep the daggers in their sheaths, eh? That is actually a good question...
cause im just saying, it makes it really hard to want to throw your hat in the ring when everyone in the ring is using bazooka's at each other.
|
On September 03 2012 04:58 OmiDeLta wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 04:55 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 04:51 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:50 Sroobz wrote:On September 03 2012 04:47 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 04:45 Sroobz wrote:On September 03 2012 04:44 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:42 Tewks44 wrote:On September 03 2012 04:40 Ogww wrote:On September 03 2012 04:36 OmiDeLta wrote:
[quote]
Once they started, they changed drastically. The correllation was obvious. And please do not take a jab at my father, he IS well-respected and has taught me much. It hurt me badly to see what happened to my friends - all they wanted to do was be high, they didn't want to go out and do what we usually did anymore - no more lazer tag, no more Magic: The Gathering get-togethers, they didn't even want to play games online. That was when I started asking my father and therapist questions. If you want, I can get the sources my therapist uses but unfortunately that will have to wait until Tuesday; I'm sorry, there is nothing I can do about that. Too bad for your argument that correlation doesn't imply causality. correlation DOES imply causality. Correlation doesn't CONFIRM causality, but it does IMPLY causality. If we followed your logic than there would be absolutely no purpose of scientific studies because scientific studies are based around identifying correlations and extrapolating whether or not it is due to causation or not. People are so eager to say correlation doesn't imply causation as if correlation excludes any possibility of causation, which is the exact opposite of what correlation suggests. Oh my goodness. A rational person. -clings to you- Be my friend. Why do you think I asked questions? Correllation implied causality, which was why I asked questions and later got them confirmed. Are you kidding? Tewks44 post is just nonsense that literally talks about nothing. yeah but he talks nonsense that supports OmiDeLta's "argument" OMG! A rational person -clings to you- be my friend! Seriously though, I smoke weed regularly and I still get 4.0s in college (always have). I still have a girlfriend (long-distance) and I have never beaten her (hey alcoholics). My family and I still get along well. I have a ton of friends that drink and smoke. Omg weed ruined my life. Mocking people isn't nice, you know. "OMG! A rational person -clings to you- be my friend!" is a backhanded insult to others in the thread so for you to complain about people mocking others is somewhat ironic I said that in response to his post about correllation and causality, NOT to his post bashing Joe Rogan.
It was still an insult to others in the thread as you implied that everyone else was not rational.
|
On September 03 2012 04:59 OmiDeLta wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 04:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:
isn't the whole stoner culture thing to live and let live? why all the anger? one guy says its the devil, another guy says its heaven, another guy says "i'm high as shit balls."
whats the problem here? i mean, i'm all for the argument and all, and analyzing and what not, but let's try to keep the daggers in their sheaths, eh? That is actually a good question...
I can go to jail for smoking weed. That's why. Live and let live doesn't work if I can go to jail for it.
|
On September 03 2012 05:00 uiCk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 04:48 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:45 uiCk wrote:On September 03 2012 04:36 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:32 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 04:25 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:20 Kickboxer wrote:Guys, just a word of advice. If you have never smoked pot, aren't close to anyone who habitually does it, and if your sole knowledge of the subject is based on some shady, random "research" or the teachings of your conservative daddy, please stay the fuck out of this debate  you are only embarrassing yourselves. It's like a virgin discussing the finer points of arousing women. If you are referring to me, no, I actually come from a liberal family, and my father happens to be a respected scientist, so how about you stop assuming things about everyone who opposes marijuana use. Maybe I never used it because I saw how debilitating it was to old friends of mine, after watching them throw their lives away and change drastically after using it, and started doing research into it myself only to find out that surprise surprise, I had every reason to oppose it and not use it. it's possible your friends were going to be losers regardless, finding a correlation between your friends throwing their lives away and them smoking weed is a pretty weak conclusion from someone whose dad is a "respected scientist" Bill Hicks smoked weed and was a comedy genius, Joe Rogan smokes weed and is super successful, Nate Diaz smokes weed and is one of the UFCs top fighters and can swim from Alcatraz to the shore (that takes some serious endurance btw, there was a reason Alcatraz was positioned where it was), the list goes on and on with successful people who smoked/smoke weed, your "evidence" is anecdotal and again, for someone with a supposedly scientific family, you should be able to see how weak and embarrassing your argument is. Once they started, they changed drastically. The correllation was obvious. And please do not take a jab at my father, he IS well-respected and has taught me much. It hurt me badly to see what happened to my friends - all they wanted to do was be high, they didn't want to go out and do what we usually did anymore - no more lazer tag, no more Magic: The Gathering get-togethers, they didn't even want to play games online. That was when I started asking my father and therapist questions. If you want, I can get the sources my therapist uses but unfortunately that will have to wait until Tuesday; I'm sorry, there is nothing I can do about that. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis#Correlation_versus_causationand more generally, i would suggest using this to improve your rational thinking, in everything and not making bogus correlation that ususally do not imply causation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causationTo your story, i can guarantee you that your friends would of found anything else to abuse. The point is that your friends have alot of pain, mental, whether its an illness or trauma, and that their behavior dictates that they need something to ease the pain, it's easy to abuse substances. Weed is excellent for mental pains. It implies it. It does not equal it. Implication does not mean something is automatically there. Implication means something MIGHT be there. Hence why I asked. Seriously, you're using Wikipedia as a reference? ...I find it hard to take you seriously that way. because wiki has most researches that everyone has been linking , in a more organized way. is there a problem? Also, do you agree that your buddies would of used some other substance if THC did not exist? Also, i don't think you understand the difference between correlation and causation. Correlation can be as simple as: the tree is green, my t shirt is green. And what you are doing is you are implying that i am a tree. A causation is something more concrete, like, i eat, which causes me to poop.
No, I do not. I will stand by this. They were not stupid enough to touch something potentially deadly.
|
|
|
On September 03 2012 05:00 uiCk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 04:48 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:45 uiCk wrote:On September 03 2012 04:36 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:32 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 04:25 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:20 Kickboxer wrote:Guys, just a word of advice. If you have never smoked pot, aren't close to anyone who habitually does it, and if your sole knowledge of the subject is based on some shady, random "research" or the teachings of your conservative daddy, please stay the fuck out of this debate you are only embarrassing yourselves. It's like a virgin discussing the finer points of arousing women. If you are referring to me, no, I actually come from a liberal family, and my father happens to be a respected scientist, so how about you stop assuming things about everyone who opposes marijuana use. Maybe I never used it because I saw how debilitating it was to old friends of mine, after watching them throw their lives away and change drastically after using it, and started doing research into it myself only to find out that surprise surprise, I had every reason to oppose it and not use it. it's possible your friends were going to be losers regardless, finding a correlation between your friends throwing their lives away and them smoking weed is a pretty weak conclusion from someone whose dad is a "respected scientist" Bill Hicks smoked weed and was a comedy genius, Joe Rogan smokes weed and is super successful, Nate Diaz smokes weed and is one of the UFCs top fighters and can swim from Alcatraz to the shore (that takes some serious endurance btw, there was a reason Alcatraz was positioned where it was), the list goes on and on with successful people who smoked/smoke weed, your "evidence" is anecdotal and again, for someone with a supposedly scientific family, you should be able to see how weak and embarrassing your argument is. Once they started, they changed drastically. The correllation was obvious. And please do not take a jab at my father, he IS well-respected and has taught me much. It hurt me badly to see what happened to my friends - all they wanted to do was be high, they didn't want to go out and do what we usually did anymore - no more lazer tag, no more Magic: The Gathering get-togethers, they didn't even want to play games online. That was when I started asking my father and therapist questions. If you want, I can get the sources my therapist uses but unfortunately that will have to wait until Tuesday; I'm sorry, there is nothing I can do about that. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis#Correlation_versus_causationand more generally, i would suggest using this to improve your rational thinking, in everything and not making bogus correlation that ususally do not imply causation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causationTo your story, i can guarantee you that your friends would of found anything else to abuse. The point is that your friends have alot of pain, mental, whether its an illness or trauma, and that their behavior dictates that they need something to ease the pain, it's easy to abuse substances. Weed is excellent for mental pains. It implies it. It does not equal it. Implication does not mean something is automatically there. Implication means something MIGHT be there. Hence why I asked. Seriously, you're using Wikipedia as a reference? ...I find it hard to take you seriously that way. because wiki has most researches that everyone has been linking , in a more organized way. is there a problem? Also, do you agree that your buddies would of used some other substance if THC did not exist? Also, i don't think you understand the difference between correlation and causation. Correlation can be as simple as: the tree is green, my t shirt is green. And what you are doing is you are implying that i am a tree. A causation is something more concrete, like, i eat, which causes me to poop.
When you're talking about data correlation is not quite so simple. Correlation is when two sets of data seem to interact. Data is collected over time, so saying "my shirt is green, a tree is green, therefore I am a tree" is a massive oversimplification. A better example to highlight your argument is to look at a graph of the number of pirates and average global temperature. There is a negative correlation there, but obviously no causation. However, the kind of logic that goes into dismissing a study due to the fact correlation exists is completely backwards thinking.
|
All this talk of weed being a gateway drug is nonsense. I have been an avid weed smoker for a few years now, and not a single time have I tried a more extreme drug. Yes statistics show that marijuana smokers are more likely to try other drugs but this is simply because if in your lifetime you plan on doing something like coke or MDMA you will obviously smoke weed first because of its accessibility and relatively low health risks in comparison. If you are willing to try hardcore drugs then obviously you are willing to smoke marijuana.
You can't OD on marijuana, it's simply impossible. Yet you can easily die from alcohol poisoning. Do you have a hangover after you get high - no. Do you get angry, violent and irrational when high - no. Do you vomit from being high - no (well maybe if you munch to hard). I think you guys get my point. Your body doesn't reject weed, but it rejects alcohol.
|
On September 03 2012 05:01 mememolly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 04:58 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:55 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 04:51 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:50 Sroobz wrote:On September 03 2012 04:47 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 04:45 Sroobz wrote:On September 03 2012 04:44 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:42 Tewks44 wrote:On September 03 2012 04:40 Ogww wrote:
[quote]
Too bad for your argument that correlation doesn't imply causality. correlation DOES imply causality. Correlation doesn't CONFIRM causality, but it does IMPLY causality. If we followed your logic than there would be absolutely no purpose of scientific studies because scientific studies are based around identifying correlations and extrapolating whether or not it is due to causation or not. People are so eager to say correlation doesn't imply causation as if correlation excludes any possibility of causation, which is the exact opposite of what correlation suggests. Oh my goodness. A rational person. -clings to you- Be my friend. Why do you think I asked questions? Correllation implied causality, which was why I asked questions and later got them confirmed. Are you kidding? Tewks44 post is just nonsense that literally talks about nothing. yeah but he talks nonsense that supports OmiDeLta's "argument" OMG! A rational person -clings to you- be my friend! Seriously though, I smoke weed regularly and I still get 4.0s in college (always have). I still have a girlfriend (long-distance) and I have never beaten her (hey alcoholics). My family and I still get along well. I have a ton of friends that drink and smoke. Omg weed ruined my life. Mocking people isn't nice, you know. "OMG! A rational person -clings to you- be my friend!" is a backhanded insult to others in the thread so for you to complain about people mocking others is somewhat ironic I said that in response to his post about correllation and causality, NOT to his post bashing Joe Rogan. It was still an insult to others in the thread as you implied that everyone else was not rational.
About that particular subject, you are correct, nobody else was being rational. If correllation didn't imply causation, how would we ever get anywhere? Correllation is potential, potential is to be explored. It just so happens I was right that time. WHO KNOWS, maybe the individual reactions to marijuana are different but from what I've seen that does not seem likely.
|
On September 03 2012 04:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 04:42 Kurumi wrote:
I have a question:
Is the money involved in marijuana so small that nobody is interested in running a huge legal business?
This is something that baffles me, it seems like common folk or "non-important" politicians are for legalizing it.
The argument to legalize marijuana could be easily made, but it seems there's no one with power interested in doing that, because if there was, we wouldn't have that debate, am I right? Marijuana is a multi-billion dollar industry just nationally in the States and arguably again in Canada alone and that is not directly relating the profit margins with respect to the massive hemp productions, the main reason marijuana is not legal is due to its industrial value with regards to paper companies. If hemp came into business... well let's just say their is a major reason why the declaration of independence is almost in perfect condition and has been even before it was pampered ^^. Hemp > paper 10fold.
Okay, so what stops paper companies from using their money to establish a hemp production? Like, when you are ahead get even more ahead?
|
On September 03 2012 05:05 Kurumi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 04:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 03 2012 04:42 Kurumi wrote:
I have a question:
Is the money involved in marijuana so small that nobody is interested in running a huge legal business?
This is something that baffles me, it seems like common folk or "non-important" politicians are for legalizing it.
The argument to legalize marijuana could be easily made, but it seems there's no one with power interested in doing that, because if there was, we wouldn't have that debate, am I right? Marijuana is a multi-billion dollar industry just nationally in the States and arguably again in Canada alone and that is not directly relating the profit margins with respect to the massive hemp productions, the main reason marijuana is not legal is due to its industrial value with regards to paper companies. If hemp came into business... well let's just say their is a major reason why the declaration of independence is almost in perfect condition and has been even before it was pampered ^^. Hemp > paper 10fold. Okay, so what stops paper companies from using their money to establish a hemp production? Like, when you are ahead get even more ahead?
it's expensive for a company to change what it does. It's cheaper to lobby and keep pot illegal than to build new facilities to convert hemp to paper. I think pot is illegal for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't necessarily mean pot should be legal. I'm not decided on the subject either way, but I do think pot is illegal due to pressures from certain industries like timber and paper.
|
On September 03 2012 05:07 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 05:05 Kurumi wrote:On September 03 2012 04:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 03 2012 04:42 Kurumi wrote:
I have a question:
Is the money involved in marijuana so small that nobody is interested in running a huge legal business?
This is something that baffles me, it seems like common folk or "non-important" politicians are for legalizing it.
The argument to legalize marijuana could be easily made, but it seems there's no one with power interested in doing that, because if there was, we wouldn't have that debate, am I right? Marijuana is a multi-billion dollar industry just nationally in the States and arguably again in Canada alone and that is not directly relating the profit margins with respect to the massive hemp productions, the main reason marijuana is not legal is due to its industrial value with regards to paper companies. If hemp came into business... well let's just say their is a major reason why the declaration of independence is almost in perfect condition and has been even before it was pampered ^^. Hemp > paper 10fold. Okay, so what stops paper companies from using their money to establish a hemp production? Like, when you are ahead get even more ahead? it's expensive for a company to change what it does. It's cheaper to lobby and keep pot illegal than to build new facilities to convert hemp to paper. I think pot is illegal for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't necessarily mean pot should be legal. I'm not decided on the subject either way, but I do think pot is illegal due to pressures from certain industries like timber and paper.
Can't they just start a new brand? Or is it that hemp is so good that paper industry would just die?
|
On September 03 2012 05:04 OmiDeLta wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 05:01 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 04:58 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:55 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 04:51 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:50 Sroobz wrote:On September 03 2012 04:47 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 04:45 Sroobz wrote:On September 03 2012 04:44 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:42 Tewks44 wrote:
[quote]
correlation DOES imply causality. Correlation doesn't CONFIRM causality, but it does IMPLY causality. If we followed your logic than there would be absolutely no purpose of scientific studies because scientific studies are based around identifying correlations and extrapolating whether or not it is due to causation or not. People are so eager to say correlation doesn't imply causation as if correlation excludes any possibility of causation, which is the exact opposite of what correlation suggests. Oh my goodness. A rational person. -clings to you- Be my friend. Why do you think I asked questions? Correllation implied causality, which was why I asked questions and later got them confirmed. Are you kidding? Tewks44 post is just nonsense that literally talks about nothing. yeah but he talks nonsense that supports OmiDeLta's "argument" OMG! A rational person -clings to you- be my friend! Seriously though, I smoke weed regularly and I still get 4.0s in college (always have). I still have a girlfriend (long-distance) and I have never beaten her (hey alcoholics). My family and I still get along well. I have a ton of friends that drink and smoke. Omg weed ruined my life. Mocking people isn't nice, you know. "OMG! A rational person -clings to you- be my friend!" is a backhanded insult to others in the thread so for you to complain about people mocking others is somewhat ironic I said that in response to his post about correllation and causality, NOT to his post bashing Joe Rogan. It was still an insult to others in the thread as you implied that everyone else was not rational. About that particular subject, you are correct, nobody else was being rational. If correllation didn't imply causation, how would we ever get anywhere? Correllation is potential, potential is to be explored. It just so happens I was right that time. WHO KNOWS, maybe the individual reactions to marijuana are different but from what I've seen that does not seem likely.
You said that because your friends are fuckups and smoked weed then weed is obviously at fault and therefore bad, that is irrational and asinine. So, no, you were not right. Sorry.
|
On September 03 2012 05:08 mememolly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 05:04 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 05:01 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 04:58 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:55 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 04:51 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:50 Sroobz wrote:On September 03 2012 04:47 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 04:45 Sroobz wrote:On September 03 2012 04:44 OmiDeLta wrote:
[quote]
Oh my goodness. A rational person. -clings to you- Be my friend. Why do you think I asked questions? Correllation implied causality, which was why I asked questions and later got them confirmed.
Are you kidding? Tewks44 post is just nonsense that literally talks about nothing. yeah but he talks nonsense that supports OmiDeLta's "argument" OMG! A rational person -clings to you- be my friend! Seriously though, I smoke weed regularly and I still get 4.0s in college (always have). I still have a girlfriend (long-distance) and I have never beaten her (hey alcoholics). My family and I still get along well. I have a ton of friends that drink and smoke. Omg weed ruined my life. Mocking people isn't nice, you know. "OMG! A rational person -clings to you- be my friend!" is a backhanded insult to others in the thread so for you to complain about people mocking others is somewhat ironic I said that in response to his post about correllation and causality, NOT to his post bashing Joe Rogan. It was still an insult to others in the thread as you implied that everyone else was not rational. About that particular subject, you are correct, nobody else was being rational. If correllation didn't imply causation, how would we ever get anywhere? Correllation is potential, potential is to be explored. It just so happens I was right that time. WHO KNOWS, maybe the individual reactions to marijuana are different but from what I've seen that does not seem likely. You said that because your friends are fuckups and smoked weed then weed is obviously at fault and therefore bad, that is irrational and asinine. So, no, you were not right. Sorry.
MY FRIENDS WERE NOT FUCKUPS. How dare you assume such a horrible thing.
|
You ban weed cause it makes people not give a fuck and thats detrimential to US society. Alcohol is good it kills people causes all kinds of accidents and health issuses. Good for generating lots of buisness.
|
On September 03 2012 05:09 OmiDeLta wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 05:08 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 05:04 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 05:01 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 04:58 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:55 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 04:51 OmiDeLta wrote:On September 03 2012 04:50 Sroobz wrote:On September 03 2012 04:47 mememolly wrote:On September 03 2012 04:45 Sroobz wrote:
[quote]
Are you kidding? Tewks44 post is just nonsense that literally talks about nothing.
yeah but he talks nonsense that supports OmiDeLta's "argument" OMG! A rational person -clings to you- be my friend! Seriously though, I smoke weed regularly and I still get 4.0s in college (always have). I still have a girlfriend (long-distance) and I have never beaten her (hey alcoholics). My family and I still get along well. I have a ton of friends that drink and smoke. Omg weed ruined my life. Mocking people isn't nice, you know. "OMG! A rational person -clings to you- be my friend!" is a backhanded insult to others in the thread so for you to complain about people mocking others is somewhat ironic I said that in response to his post about correllation and causality, NOT to his post bashing Joe Rogan. It was still an insult to others in the thread as you implied that everyone else was not rational. About that particular subject, you are correct, nobody else was being rational. If correllation didn't imply causation, how would we ever get anywhere? Correllation is potential, potential is to be explored. It just so happens I was right that time. WHO KNOWS, maybe the individual reactions to marijuana are different but from what I've seen that does not seem likely. You said that because your friends are fuckups and smoked weed then weed is obviously at fault and therefore bad, that is irrational and asinine. So, no, you were not right. Sorry. MY FRIENDS WERE NOT FUCKUPS. How dare you assume such a horrible thing.
You said they threw their lives away. How dare you assume that weed is bad based on your friend's experiences that might not have anything to do with weed, such a horrible assumption.
|
On September 03 2012 05:08 Kurumi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 05:07 Tewks44 wrote:On September 03 2012 05:05 Kurumi wrote:On September 03 2012 04:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 03 2012 04:42 Kurumi wrote:
I have a question:
Is the money involved in marijuana so small that nobody is interested in running a huge legal business?
This is something that baffles me, it seems like common folk or "non-important" politicians are for legalizing it.
The argument to legalize marijuana could be easily made, but it seems there's no one with power interested in doing that, because if there was, we wouldn't have that debate, am I right? Marijuana is a multi-billion dollar industry just nationally in the States and arguably again in Canada alone and that is not directly relating the profit margins with respect to the massive hemp productions, the main reason marijuana is not legal is due to its industrial value with regards to paper companies. If hemp came into business... well let's just say their is a major reason why the declaration of independence is almost in perfect condition and has been even before it was pampered ^^. Hemp > paper 10fold. Okay, so what stops paper companies from using their money to establish a hemp production? Like, when you are ahead get even more ahead? it's expensive for a company to change what it does. It's cheaper to lobby and keep pot illegal than to build new facilities to convert hemp to paper. I think pot is illegal for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't necessarily mean pot should be legal. I'm not decided on the subject either way, but I do think pot is illegal due to pressures from certain industries like timber and paper. Can't they just start a new brand? Or is it that hemp is so good that paper industry would just die?
Pharma's, alcohol, lumber, textiles and more! Weed would have a monopoly on the markets, lol.
|
On September 03 2012 05:04 FreedomMurder wrote:
All this talk of weed being a gateway drug is nonsense. I have been an avid weed smoker for a few years now, and not a single time have I tried a more extreme drug. Yes statistics show that marijuana smokers are more likely to try other drugs but this is simply because if in your lifetime you plan on doing something like coke or MDMA you will obviously smoke weed first because of its accessibility and relatively low health risks in comparison. If you are willing to try hardcore drugs then obviously you are willing to smoke marijuana.
You can't OD on marijuana, it's simply impossible. Yet you can easily die from alcohol poisoning. Do you have a hangover after you get high - no. Do you get angry, violent and irrational when high - no. Do you vomit from being high - no (well maybe if you munch to hard). I think you guys get my point. Your body doesn't reject weed, but it rejects alcohol.
Your body rejects alcohol in excess, the same way your body rejects anything in excess. Your body will reject water in excess for heaven's sake. One drink does not cause any of those things to happen to someone. Excess, however, is different based on the person.
|
Let's reframe the question. Would you rather a) ban a substance that has been a cornerstone of society for millenia, or b) continue to ban a substance that carries the same public risk, but doesn't have the same cultural protection?
|
Unlikely to happen considering recent studies drawing parallels between teenage use and mental deficiency in later life. Fact it mostly goes along with tobacco addiction for the majority I've ever met is probably the largest downside. It's how I got introduced to and hooked on nicotene for 15 years.
Ofc sending people to jail for having a spliff occasionally is bullshit, but that doesn't mean it's something that should be encouraged, which legalizing something would be all but doing. Less strict laws, enforcement and sentencing are the answer, where that doesn't already occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
