On September 04 2012 07:57 cordrann wrote: Without a victim there can not be a crime. You can not victimize yourself, by definition you consent to your own actions. All drugs should be legal. Let those too weak to control themselves destroy themselves and remove their inferior genes while decreasing the surplus population.
I dislike arguments like these because they ignore reality. The reality is a lot messier. By your logic we should let everyone do whatever they want. Let docs abuse their patients trust and get them hooked. Let dealers sell drugs to kids. Or a person that was injected by a gang or pimp against their will and is now a junkie. When they buy drugs is it because of their inferior genes? You seem to think every addict has it coming and we shouldn't give a damn.
You are being illogical. It being legal would completely change the dynamics of how it is acquired. A lot of the negativity and victimization surrounding drugs is in fact created by the fact that it is illegal. By keeping these things illegal we create more profitable markets for criminal elements.
1. That would be a crime by the doctor. 2. I never said it should just be sold on the street like candy. It should be like alcohol obviously. 3. That would be a crime by the gang or pimp. (if its legal there wouldn't be much motive for them to do this in the first place)
Every single example you provide involves a clear violation of a persons right to free will. Your examples are meaningless.
On September 04 2012 08:21 EiBmoZ wrote: if no ones died from it, then how can it be bad????????? does it make me grow gills or somethign?
dude. do u know how to read? or are u high?
if i was high i'd be playing sc2 right now an i wouldn't have posted on this thread at all today it doesn't do anything harmful to the body, it's natural you can keep trying to fool yourself all day
you havent read a single link that was provided to u have u?
another side effect of weed btw. attention span is severly shortened.
btw, i would love for u to provide something other than a tru tv link (lol at that) and a youtube vid.
On September 04 2012 08:21 EiBmoZ wrote: if no ones died from it, then how can it be bad????????? does it make me grow gills or somethign?
dude. do u know how to read? or are u high?
if i was high i'd be playing sc2 right now an i wouldn't have posted on this thread at all today it doesn't do anything harmful to the body, it's natural you can keep trying to fool yourself all day
Effects on the Lungs
Smoking marijuana, even infrequently, can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, and cause heavy coughing. Scientists have found that regular marijuana smokers can experience the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers do, including: Daily cough and phlegm production More frequent acute chest illnesses Increased risk of lung infections Obstructed airways Most marijuana smokers consume a lot less cannabis than cigarette smokers consume tobacco, however the harmful effects of smoking marijuana should not be ignored. Marijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and because marijuana smokers typically inhale deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers, their lungs are exposed to those carcinogenic properties longer, when smoking. What About Cancer?
Although one study found that marijuana smokers were three times more likely to develop cancer of the head or neck than non-smokers, that study could not be confirmed by further analysis. Because marijuana smoke contains three times the amount of tar found in tobacco smoke and 50 percent more carcinogens, it would seem logical to deduce that there is an increased risk of lung cancer for marijuana smokers. However, researchers have not been able to definitively prove such a link because their studies have not been able to adjust for tobacco smoking and other factors that might also increase the risk.
Studies linking marijuana smoking to lung cancer have also been limited by selection bias and small sample size. For example, the participants in those studies may have been too young to have developed lung cancer yet. Even though researchers have yet to "prove" a link between smoking pot and lung cancer, regular smokers may want to consider the risk.
Don't just deny evidence because you've never heard of it before, come on. Also, there are tons of natural things that are deadly, just look at any poisonous plant or animal.
On September 04 2012 08:21 EiBmoZ wrote: if no ones died from it, then how can it be bad????????? does it make me grow gills or somethign?
dude. do u know how to read? or are u high?
if i was high i'd be playing sc2 right now an i wouldn't have posted on this thread at all today it doesn't do anything harmful to the body, it's natural you can keep trying to fool yourself all day
Smoking marijuana, even infrequently, can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, and cause heavy coughing. Scientists have found that regular marijuana smokers can experience the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers do, including: Daily cough and phlegm production More frequent acute chest illnesses Increased risk of lung infections Obstructed airways Most marijuana smokers consume a lot less cannabis than cigarette smokers consume tobacco, however the harmful effects of smoking marijuana should not be ignored. Marijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and because marijuana smokers typically inhale deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers, their lungs are exposed to those carcinogenic properties longer, when smoking. What About Cancer?
Although one study found that marijuana smokers were three times more likely to develop cancer of the head or neck than non-smokers, that study could not be confirmed by further analysis. Because marijuana smoke contains three times the amount of tar found in tobacco smoke and 50 percent more carcinogens, it would seem logical to deduce that there is an increased risk of lung cancer for marijuana smokers. However, researchers have not been able to definitively prove such a link because their studies have not been able to adjust for tobacco smoking and other factors that might also increase the risk.
Studies linking marijuana smoking to lung cancer have also been limited by selection bias and small sample size. For example, the participants in those studies may have been too young to have developed lung cancer yet. Even though researchers have yet to "prove" a link between smoking pot and lung cancer, regular smokers may want to consider the risk.
Don't just deny evidence because you've never heard of it before, come on. Also, there are tons of natural things that are deadly, just look at any poisonous plant or animal.
exactly!
tobbaco is natural. this guy is obviously to high to argue properly so just ignore him
On September 04 2012 07:57 cordrann wrote: Without a victim there can not be a crime. You can not victimize yourself, by definition you consent to your own actions. All drugs should be legal. Let those too weak to control themselves destroy themselves and remove their inferior genes while decreasing the surplus population.
I dislike arguments like these because they ignore reality. The reality is a lot messier. By your logic we should let everyone do whatever they want. Let docs abuse their patients trust and get them hooked. Let dealers sell drugs to kids. Or a person that was injected by a gang or pimp against their will and is now a junkie. When they buy drugs is it because of their inferior genes? You seem to think every addict has it coming and we shouldn't give a damn.
You are being illogical. It being legal would completely change the dynamics of how it is acquired. A lot of the negativity and victimization surrounding drugs is in fact created by the fact that it is illegal. By keeping these things illegal we create more profitable markets for criminal elements.
1. That would be a crime by the doctor. 2. I never said it should just be sold on the street like candy. It should be like alcohol obviously. 3. That would be a crime by the gang or pimp. (if its legal there wouldn't be much motive for them to do this in the first place)
Every single example you provide involves a clear violation of a persons right to free will. Your examples are meaningless.
Drugs erode free will whether your initial consumption was an act of free will or not. Addiction is addiction. Also I don't think my examples are meaningless because they happen. Your statement "let those too weak to control themselves destroy themselves" only applies if reality is a nice tidy place where kids and others in vulnerable positions are not exploited. Unfortunately they are. I don't think acknowledging that fact is meaningless just because it contradicts your vision of how things should be.
My issue is not with your legal stance, which we in fact agree on (legalization with regulations). It's your lack of empathy for drug addicts.
On September 04 2012 08:21 EiBmoZ wrote: if no ones died from it, then how can it be bad????????? does it make me grow gills or somethign?
dude. do u know how to read? or are u high?
if i was high i'd be playing sc2 right now an i wouldn't have posted on this thread at all today it doesn't do anything harmful to the body, it's natural you can keep trying to fool yourself all day
You sound like a typical ignorant stoner to me. It's impossible to have a reasonable conversation because your are blind to the negative effect of the drug. I'm pretty sure i've heard that smoking marijuana can cause lung cancer. I'm pretty sure I just the other day read that teens that were smoking had lower IQ then the non-smokers. I'm pretty sure I've read that marijuana can help a person develop Schizophrenia.
2 - Total deaths caused from alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs: hundreds of thousands per year.
3 - Marijuana's current status as illegal does not prevent anyone from smoking it who cares to. Depending on what poll you look at, 40-60 percent of the US population under the age of 21 has smoked at least once, and about 10-15 percent smoke regularly. We've all heard anecdotal evidence that high school age children often have a harder time acquiring beer than marijuana.
4 - Hundreds of thousands of Americans suffer from disease for which marijuana can provide some relief, but are denied access.
5 - Marijuana laws typically prosecute marijuana users on a similar level to users of cocaine, heroin, and meth.
6 - Many professionals are marijuana users. The stereotype of a lazy fuck-up exists for smokers and non-smokers alike. Some notable smokers include Bill Gates, Rick Steves, Pablo Picasso, Steve Jobs, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Francis Crick, Andrew Weil, Kary Mullis, Oliver Sacks, Richard Feynman, and the list goes on and on if you care to look.
7 - If marijuana was legalized, the gateway drug argument would be rendered moot. It would separate its black market dealings from other drugs such as heroin and cocaine. It would be controlled and regulated, and would not lead to harder drugs any more than alcohol or tobacco would.
8 - Studies have shown that marijuana use does not negatively impact your brain, but it is a moot point when discussing legality. Alcohol is 100% proven to damage your brain, liver, and many other systems in your body, and yet it remains legal. Cannabis' negative physical side effects are at the worst controversial, and at best hardly existent. This is not a basis for prohibition.
Who even cares what the effects are, it's irrelevant. How can the state have the right to tell someone what they can or cannot ingest (provided there is little risk of it adversely affecting anyone other than the ingestee)?
Are some people, on no side in particular, really that fucking stupid or trolling everyone hard? Since this thread was created, there's always been at least one person who posts 1-2 sentences saying bullshit statements while refusing to rationally listen to anyone else...
Anything you smoke is bad for you, but weed is one of the safest recreational drugs. Can we leave it at that?
I just smelled my neighbours smoking weed. It's only a matter of time until I hear gunshots. I have my phone nearby incase I need to call 911. Weed wrecks families.
On September 04 2012 07:57 cordrann wrote: Without a victim there can not be a crime. You can not victimize yourself, by definition you consent to your own actions. All drugs should be legal. Let those too weak to control themselves destroy themselves and remove their inferior genes while decreasing the surplus population.
I dislike arguments like these because they ignore reality. The reality is a lot messier. By your logic we should let everyone do whatever they want. Let docs abuse their patients trust and get them hooked. Let dealers sell drugs to kids. Or a person that was injected by a gang or pimp against their will and is now a junkie. When they buy drugs is it because of their inferior genes? You seem to think every addict has it coming and we shouldn't give a damn.
You are being illogical. It being legal would completely change the dynamics of how it is acquired. A lot of the negativity and victimization surrounding drugs is in fact created by the fact that it is illegal. By keeping these things illegal we create more profitable markets for criminal elements.
1. That would be a crime by the doctor. 2. I never said it should just be sold on the street like candy. It should be like alcohol obviously. 3. That would be a crime by the gang or pimp. (if its legal there wouldn't be much motive for them to do this in the first place)
Every single example you provide involves a clear violation of a persons right to free will. Your examples are meaningless.
Drugs erode free will whether your initial consumption was an act of free will or not. Addiction is addiction. Also I don't think my examples are meaningless because they happen. Your statement "let those too weak to control themselves destroy themselves" only applies if reality is a nice tidy place where kids and others in vulnerable positions are not exploited. Unfortunately they are. I don't think acknowledging that fact is meaningless just because it contradicts your vision of how things should be.
My issue is not with your legal stance, which we in fact agree on (legalization with regulations). It's your lack of empathy for drug addicts.
People who are victimized clearly deserve empathy and support and I would never argue they do not. That is why we have families, police and charities. I wasn't speaking in absolutes when I made my initial statement and I think that may be part of the misunderstanding. There are gray areas and exceptions in everything obviously.
If your initial consumption of drugs is of your own free will you deserve what you get. That is just basic personal responsibility. While I pity these people for the clear mistakes they have made, I personally feel that going out of our way to help people who do this just fosters a culture of decadence, but that is with me having had several drug addicts in my family, so I may be somewhat biased.
HELL NO! I am a drug kingpin, I made my fortune from the fact that weed is illegal. I'm sitting on 5 bitches contorted to form a chair, smoking a huge blunt and later i'm going to bathe in 50 liters of really expensive champagne. All of that because weed has a ridiculously high price. Not even the fucking iPhone is more overpriced than weed. BLESS the good people keeping weed illegal so my crime empire can grow and grow!
No, seriously, just legalize the damn plant. Stupid Rockefellers, no one is gonna stop cutting trees for paper because of it.
On September 04 2012 07:22 Zahir wrote: I think it should be legal. Alcohol is way worse than marijuana. Honestly if anyone actually gave a damn about public safety, preventing addicts, or whatever, they would go after alcohol, not weed.
I drink sparingly, and smoke never, but I've been around people who do both in large amounts. Weed smokers may be depressingly unambitious and act dumb when they're high, but drunk people and their lowered inhibitions and impaired vision/senses/judgement are a force to be fucking feared. They are dangerous to themselves and others. And alcohol can kill you.
As for marijuana being a gateway drug, that's just a ridiculous argument. You can't just make something illegal cause it might cause someone to do something else illegal, or everything would be illegal. If it even is a gateway drug, which Ive never seen a study saying it is to any more significant extent than say alcohol, then making it legal would solve the problem. There are different cultures and patterns of behavior associated with legal and illegal substances, so essentially, banning it for being a gateway to other illegal drugs is like a self fulfilling prophecy. It's not a fair statement, because the activity in question is already illegal and thus more likely to be pursued by those prone to illegal activity.
i dont think you have ever seen ppl jump off of there roofs into a blue mat because they were to high to notice it wasnt water.
marijuna may not be as bad as alchol or cigs, but to say it causes no negative effects (especially when you smoke ALOT of it every day) is foolish.
since ppl wont beleive my words alone ill have to provide some links.
it does harm the body, do not let a fool tell u that it does absolutly nothing to you.
now is it enough to make it illegal? well that is where the debate starts. again, i have nothing against it being legal as long as its regulated.
that artical is nothing but lies, next
based on what evidence is it lies other than your own biased opinion?
watch this documentary an get back to me
read my edited post and then get back to me
it is really hard to argue shit like this with someone that just complete ignores evidence on the other side of the argument.
one video on youtube is not enough to prove your own argument btw.
that documentary was made by hundreds of doctors, i believe them over you
and the articles/sources i provided wasnt? holy shit dude....
again, you are a pure example of what im talking about. what makes a doctor arguing the negative effects of marijuana any less creditable than a doctor arguing the benefits of it?
its like arguing with a 5 year old. "THE DOCTORS IVE SEEN ARE SMARTER THAN YOUR DOCTORS SO U ARE WRONG *STICKS TOUNGE OUT*"
The health effects of pot are irrelevant to the legalization debate. Even if you assume the worst, its far less harmful than many other legal substances.
On September 04 2012 07:57 cordrann wrote: Without a victim there can not be a crime. You can not victimize yourself, by definition you consent to your own actions. All drugs should be legal. Let those too weak to control themselves destroy themselves and remove their inferior genes while decreasing the surplus population.
I dislike arguments like these because they ignore reality. The reality is a lot messier. By your logic we should let everyone do whatever they want. Let docs abuse their patients trust and get them hooked. Let dealers sell drugs to kids. Or a person that was injected by a gang or pimp against their will and is now a junkie. When they buy drugs is it because of their inferior genes? You seem to think every addict has it coming and we shouldn't give a damn.
You are being illogical. It being legal would completely change the dynamics of how it is acquired. A lot of the negativity and victimization surrounding drugs is in fact created by the fact that it is illegal. By keeping these things illegal we create more profitable markets for criminal elements.
1. That would be a crime by the doctor. 2. I never said it should just be sold on the street like candy. It should be like alcohol obviously. 3. That would be a crime by the gang or pimp. (if its legal there wouldn't be much motive for them to do this in the first place)
Every single example you provide involves a clear violation of a persons right to free will. Your examples are meaningless.
Drugs erode free will whether your initial consumption was an act of free will or not. Addiction is addiction. Also I don't think my examples are meaningless because they happen. Your statement "let those too weak to control themselves destroy themselves" only applies if reality is a nice tidy place where kids and others in vulnerable positions are not exploited. Unfortunately they are. I don't think acknowledging that fact is meaningless just because it contradicts your vision of how things should be.
My issue is not with your legal stance, which we in fact agree on (legalization with regulations). It's your lack of empathy for drug addicts.
Is eating a bar of chocolate one day and wanting to eat more another day because you like it eroding your free will? Because that's how wanting to smoke another joint after initially smoking one is. And you know how eating too much chocolate makes you sick and you don't want to eat it again for a period? Yep, weed is exactly the same. This isn't "should heroin be legalized" thread, it's about god damn weed. It's "addictive" because it's fucking good, not because you don't feel good if you don't consume it (a la heroin and tobacco for that matter).
EPT
