Drug use and abuse, particularly of marijuana, is a controversial issue. The debates on either side of the issue often revolve around valid scientific studies, deeply-held long-standing beliefs and biases, personal freedom, religion, sketchy research, practical use, and ignorance, among many things. But heated arguments that generate much heat and little light is not enough justification to not conduct a thoughtful respectful discussion on the matter.
This topic is massive with a lot of issues and sub-issues and would require active and diligent study of each of us to make sure the discussion will be productive and enlightening, regardless which side of the issue we stand.
WHAT IS MARIJUANAMarijuana (marihuana) Cannabis sativa L., also known as Indian hemp, is a member of the Cannabaceae or hemp family, thought to have originated in the mountainous districts of India, north of the Himalayan mountains. A preparation made from the dried flower clusters and leaves of the cannabis plant is usually smoked or eaten to induce euphoria.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTSProponents for legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana based believe that it is safe (within regulation) and has proven medical value in diseases like AIDS, cancer, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and others.
Proponents for (continued) illegalizing marijuana argue that it is dangerous and various legal drugs make marijuana use unnecessary. They say marijuana is addictive and poses many health issues, including pulmonary, neurological, and reproductive risks.
WORLD LAWS
Wikipedia
KEY ISSUES1. Health Risks
Legalize/Decriminalize There is very little evidence that smoking marijuana as a means of taking it represents a significant health risk. Although cannabis has been smoked widely in Western countries for more than four decades, there have been no reported cases of lung cancer or emphysema attributed to marijuana.
Illegalize 3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.
2. Addiction and "Gateway" Effect
Legalize/Decriminalize For some users, perhaps as many as 10 per cent, cannabis leads to psychological dependence, but there is scant evidence that it carries a risk of true addiction. Unlike cigarette smokers, most users do not take the drug on a daily basis, and usually abandon it in their twenties or thirties.
There is also no causative evidence linking marijuana use to elevation to harder drugs. The people who are predisposed to use drugs and have the opportunity to use drugs are more likely than others to use both marijuana and harder drugs. Marijuana typically comes first because it is more available, not because marijuana makes them try harder drugs.
Illegalize There are several specific effects of marijuana abstinence in heavy marijuana users, and showed they were reliable and clinically significant. These withdrawal effects appear similar in type and magnitude to those observed in studies of nicotine withdrawal. Craving for marijuana, decreased appetite, sleep difficulty, and weight loss reliably changed across the smoking and abstinence phases. Aggression, anger, irritability, restlessness, and strange dreams increased significantly during one abstinence phase, but not the other.
Moreover, the younger children are when they first use marijuana, the more likely they are to use cocaine and heroin and become dependent on drugs as adults. Increases in the likelihood of cocaine and heroin use and drug dependence are also apparent for those who initiate use of marijuana at any later age.
3. Medical Use
Legalize/Decriminalize The evidence is overwhelming that marijuana can relieve certain types of pain, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms caused by such illnesses as multiple sclerosis, cancer and AIDS -- or by the harsh drugs sometimes used to treat them. And it can do so with remarkable safety.
Illegalize There is lack of consistent, repeatable scientific data available to prove marijuana's medical benefits. Based on current evidence, marijuana is a dangerous drug and that there are less dangerous medicines offering the same relief from pain and other medical symptoms.
YOUR OPINIONIf you can, please post in the thread your vote and your explanation.
European Journal of Neurology: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Enriched-design Study of Nabiximols (Sativex), as Add-on Therapy, in Subjects with Refractory Spasticity Caused by Multiple Sclerosis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21362108
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management: Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study of the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of THC:CBD Extract and THC Extract in Patients With Intractable Cancer-Related Pain http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19896326
Schizophrenia Bulletin: The Effect of Cannabis Use and Cognitive Reserve on Age at Onset and Psychosis Outcomes in First-Episode Schizophrenia http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21389110
European Neuropsychopharmacology: Effects of Acute Oral Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol and Standardized Cannabis Extract on the Auditory P300 Event-related Potential in Healthy Volunteers http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18544469
Legalized - like cigarette and alcohol, they become available without any legal prohibitions. Legal interventions only come to deal with the results and not with the acquisition itself, that is, a person being drunk may be penalized after vandalizing or breaking a window.
Decriminalized - legal only in some specific cases, like for medical purposes, or, upon scientific investigation proving the baseline standard, (hypothetical in this case) a person is only allowed a certain amount of cannabis in his system for recreational purposes. Anything more results in an arrest.
Illegalize - punishable under any circumstance.
Marijuana is illegal but largely tolerated in Germany and most of Europe. Many, mostly students, use it freely, outside the view of authorities. I vote decriminalize. Regulated marijuana use has good medical and recreational purpose. Also, can I request the moderators to please delete the period "." in the thread title. Thank you.
On October 21 2012 16:56 Voltaire wrote: Legalize.
There's a chance it could be voted legal in a few states in the US this November. Colorado and Washington, I believe.
Irrelevant because Federal law states that marijuana is illegal. Any state measure to legalize marijuana is simply a show of public opinion. At the end of the day it is still illegal, and the Federal government is well within their right to stage raids against dispensaries.
Anyways, I don't see why it is illegal to possess/use. We waste far too much money punishing petty criminals for stupid shit. As far as I'm concerned, legalize all drugs and let the abusers die out.
The primary reason marijuana isn't legal is that it makes people think critically. This isn't a comment on whether or not marijuana is a positive thing just my opinion on why it's illegal. Marijuana teaches many people to be more open minded and more capable of following trains of thought that they would otherwise dismiss. Again, just my opinion.
Marijuana is surely unhealthy as you are putting smoke in your lungs. But this isn't a justification for it being illegal. It has no synthetic chemicals in it unlikely cigarettes and is definitely healthier.
I smoked marijuana for years and didn't have much trouble quitting. It is not physically addictive, and being psychologically addictive isn't really a point. Psychological addiction is the same as wanting something because you know you like it.
The 'medical use' section doesn't even contain a reason for keeping it illegal.
The entire war on drugs is bogus anyways it's about money and control not about doing anything good.
I find it kind of silly it's illegal. I don't understand the people that want it illegal either. I don't drink alcohol, just because I don't find it appealing to me. But I don't look down on others for drinking, or feel like I have to stop them. I don't understand why people don't just let me smoke weed in the same way.
Also it's kind of crazy that it's illegal to grow hemp in the US. And restricted in the UK with government controlled licenses etc. Even though the industrial version of hemp is almost impossible to get high from. It's got so many uses, which just completely blow other materials out of the water. But just doesn't seem to be used because of a stigma attached to it.
Marijuana does not hurt more than alcohol in my opinion. Yet alcohol is legal in broadly around the world. I smoke marijuana and have done so for many years. I do not touch alcohol because I believe that it is more harmful than smoking a joint.
I'd rather sit with some friends and share a few joints than I want to get drunk. I do not like to be drunk and not in control of myself so you do stupid things you regret the next day.
Legalize it and let the goverment earn big! instead of financing Drug wars around the world!
Personally I was never a fan of marijuana, The people who tend to be "addicted" to it for lack of a better word and smoke heavily that I personally have ever known were always the type of people who couldn't keep a job and were not the smartest people, I figured this was a coincidence.
But then when I was at university I witnessed a straight A/HD student start smoking and within 6 months he didn't care about anything other than smoking it and even quit university and went on welfare. so it got me thinking, what is the tradeoff, having it illegal and people being hurt trying to get it that way, or having it legal and running the risk of those with addictive personalities get hooked on it, but that being said its just as much a risk that they get addicted to anything else.
That being said i'm sure there are many people who have the self control to do it moderately, so really why isn't it legalized yet when cigarettes and alcohol is pretty much the same thing.
I can't believe some people here really voted "illegalized" in the poll. I wonder if they put their "GOD HATE FAGS" sign aside or if they keep holding it up while voting. lol they are doing bad to their health, better put them in the jail. lol
Marijuana SHOULD be legal. There's like no reason for it to be illegal. A lot of people smarter than me have discussed how alcohol is somehow legal and pot isn't, so I'm not gonna write a poor quality post about that, I'll just share my opinion.
As I said, it should be legal, but I personally don't think it should be. The main reason I'm not down with marijuana is because I don't support intoxication through use of drugs and alchohol and the like... it just isn't useful to anyone and is somewhat selfish. I'm a Christian (I suck at it but I adhere to its most basic principles), but I don't think anyone here would want me to go into the Christian-based reasoning against it.
I'm against it, but I'm not really into forcing my beliefs on people and I don't like any conflicts between people in general, so if it was legal then whatever, I guess.
I don't know anything about the negative effects of marijuana, but some people I know who smoke A LOT are not as quick minded and don't talk as fast as they used to. lol
btw I almost misspelled marajuana like 5 times while writing this post. That would have been fucking embarrassing hahaha.
well from a society point of view, people who smoke weed are also the the laziest and most unproductive people. i'm not sure i'd want that legalised so everyone goes on welfare to get high every day.
3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.
That's not a real argument. It's like banning water because people might fill their lungs with it.
On October 21 2012 18:17 jimbob615 wrote: well from a society point of view, people who smoke weed are also the the laziest and most unproductive people. i'm not sure i'd want that legalised so everyone goes on welfare to get high every day.
From personal experience I can say that's not true, some of the best workers I know also smoke weed in their free time.
On October 21 2012 18:17 jimbob615 wrote: well from a society point of view, people who smoke weed are also the the laziest and most unproductive people. i'm not sure i'd want that legalised so everyone goes on welfare to get high every day.
From personal experience I can say that's not true, some of the best workers I know also smoke weed in their free time.
i believe you, but like anything in life, there will be a spread from one extreme to another.
i can counter by saying from my personal experience, the laziest people i've met, EVER, also smoke weed in their free time. a better way to look at it is, on average, is someone going to be slower, more dim-witted and lazier after smoking? on average, i think you will find the answer to this is yes. and is that something we want the masses to have open access to?
3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.
That's not a real argument. It's like banning water because people might fill their lungs with it.
Yes it is. Smoking 3-4 unfiltered cigarettes a day is also like smoking 20 or more filtered cigarettes.
Cannabis contains far more carcinogens than tobacco. I've smoked pot for over 10 years and I support legalization but please, don't try to blow smoke up my ass. It's cancerous.
On October 21 2012 16:56 Voltaire wrote: Legalize.
There's a chance it could be voted legal in a few states in the US this November. Colorado and Washington, I believe.
Irrelevant because Federal law states that marijuana is illegal. Any state measure to legalize marijuana is simply a show of public opinion. At the end of the day it is still illegal, and the Federal government is well within their right to stage raids against dispensaries.
Anyways, I don't see why it is illegal to possess/use. We waste far too much money punishing petty criminals for stupid shit. As far as I'm concerned, legalize all drugs and let the abusers die out.
Its not irrelevant because almost all law enforcement isn't federal.
3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.
That's not a real argument. It's like banning water because people might fill their lungs with it.
Yes it is. Smoking 3-4 unfiltered cigarettes a day is also like smoking 20 or more filtered cigarettes.
Cannabis contains far more carcinogens than tobacco. I've smoked pot for over 10 years and I support legalization but please, don't try to blow smoke up my ass. It's cancerous.
I think he meant that there are other ways to consume weed, so having an argument base on smoking would be moot.
On October 21 2012 18:17 jimbob615 wrote: well from a society point of view, people who smoke weed are also the the laziest and most unproductive people. i'm not sure i'd want that legalised so everyone goes on welfare to get high every day.
From personal experience I can say that's not true, some of the best workers I know also smoke weed in their free time.
This is a good point, peoples personal experiences will always be different, like from my personal experience I would say that they are laziest and most unproductive.
I don't envy people in politics when it comes to that
I have friends who smoke pot. I used to join them, but I notice when they smoke, they can't hold a good discussion without going needlessly aggressive and very opinionated that you'd think they want to kill people who don't follow their ideas. That;s firsthand experience, better than research!
On October 21 2012 18:17 jimbob615 wrote: well from a society point of view, people who smoke weed are also the the laziest and most unproductive people. i'm not sure i'd want that legalised so everyone goes on welfare to get high every day.
From personal experience I can say that's not true, some of the best workers I know also smoke weed in their free time.
i believe you, but like anything in life, there will be a spread from one extreme to another.
i can counter by saying from my personal experience, the laziest people i've met, EVER, also smoke weed in their free time. a better way to look at it is, on average, is someone going to be slower, more dim-witted and lazier after smoking? on average, i think you will find the answer to this is yes. and is that something we want the masses to have open access to?
From the data discussed so far, it appears unlikely that decriminalization of cannabis will cause an increase in cannabis use
D.J. Korf / Addictive Behaviors 27 (2002) 851–866 Keep in mind the data used in that paper originates from Netherlands, where cannabis is more readily available than the status "decriminalized" would probably suggest (compared to Portugal or Chech Republic (I've done no research whatsoever on that statement, correct me if I'm wrong)), therefore suggesting that legalization, as opposed to decriminalization should not bring much different results, if at all.
Now, I'm not saying decriminalization/legalization of cannabis definitely doesn't increase its usage, but it is a debate on its own.
On October 21 2012 18:42 Le Cheque Zo wrote: I have friends who smoke pot. I used to join them, but I notice when they smoke, they can't hold a good discussion without going needlessly aggressive and very opinionated that you'd think they want to kill people who don't follow their ideas. That;s firsthand experience, better than research!
Sounds just about right for any kind of bar discussion that has ever gone heated. Or any discussion that goes too heated with people in the first place.
Decriminalization works pretty well here in Holland. The only problem we have is other foreigners overwhelming the bordershops, causing us to try and make laws to make it more difficult for them.
I'm looking at you Germans. Decriminalize or legalize it please, the coffeeshops I've visited all start off talking german to me, then apologizing when I talk dutch to them. Simply because there are so many germans coming to the shops to smoke. Nothing against you guys, but it does get annoying.
On October 21 2012 18:42 Le Cheque Zo wrote: I have friends who smoke pot. I used to join them, but I notice when they smoke, they can't hold a good discussion without going needlessly aggressive and very opinionated that you'd think they want to kill people who don't follow their ideas. That;s firsthand experience, better than research!
Sounds just about right for any kind of bar discussion that has ever gone heated. Or any discussion that goes too heated with people in the first place.
Decriminalization works pretty well here in Holland. The only problem we have is other foreigners overwhelming the bordershops, causing us to try and make laws to make it more difficult for them.
I'm looking at you Germans. Decriminalize or legalize it please, the coffeeshops I've visited all start off talking german to me, then apologizing when I talk dutch to them. Simply because there are so many germans coming to the shops to smoke. Nothing against you guys, but it does get annoying.
Point is, they're normally the nicest people to talk to, until they smoke weed!
On October 21 2012 18:34 Alala-P wrote: Just read in the new scientist (magazine) that weed lowers IQ. they followed 1000 people from birth until age 38
okay so having a low IQ score is related to weed use? How do they know that those people aren't just below average? And how does that justify it being illegal?
I know a so many stupid people that don't drink or smoke weed. What should we do about them?
3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.
That's not a real argument. It's like banning water because people might fill their lungs with it.
Yes it is. Smoking 3-4 unfiltered cigarettes a day is also like smoking 20 or more filtered cigarettes.
Cannabis contains far more carcinogens than tobacco. I've smoked pot for over 10 years and I support legalization but please, don't try to blow smoke up my ass. It's cancerous.
I think he meant that there are other ways to consume weed, so having an argument base on smoking would be moot.
Well he directly quoted
3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.
So what am I to do? Assume what he meant was what he didn't say?
On October 21 2012 18:42 Le Cheque Zo wrote: I have friends who smoke pot. I used to join them, but I notice when they smoke, they can't hold a good discussion without going needlessly aggressive and very opinionated that you'd think they want to kill people who don't follow their ideas. That;s firsthand experience, better than research!
Sounds just about right for any kind of bar discussion that has ever gone heated. Or any discussion that goes too heated with people in the first place.
Decriminalization works pretty well here in Holland. The only problem we have is other foreigners overwhelming the bordershops, causing us to try and make laws to make it more difficult for them.
I'm looking at you Germans. Decriminalize or legalize it please, the coffeeshops I've visited all start off talking german to me, then apologizing when I talk dutch to them. Simply because there are so many germans coming to the shops to smoke. Nothing against you guys, but it does get annoying.
Point is, they're normally the nicest people to talk to, until they smoke weed!
Just like angry drinkers then? It's called losing inhibitions. Some people do it gracefully, others undergo through a different effect like becoming aggressive or overly annoying.
I know many people that show just how racist they are after a few drinks, while normally they are the nicest people to hang around. The type of intoxication is hardly relevant. If your point is both alcohol and drugs should be illegal, I would respect that opinion as it isn't as hypocritical as allowing alcohol a free pass while giving marijuana a bad rep because its a softdrug.
It says "Illegal but often unenforced" in South Africa, which isn't really true. In Cape Town there is quite a large anti-drug campaign for example. Also, if you get searched by the cops for no reason (completely normal) and they find even a small amount of marijuana on you, you will get locked up.
On October 21 2012 18:42 Le Cheque Zo wrote: I have friends who smoke pot. I used to join them, but I notice when they smoke, they can't hold a good discussion without going needlessly aggressive and very opinionated that you'd think they want to kill people who don't follow their ideas. That;s firsthand experience, better than research!
Sounds just about right for any kind of bar discussion that has ever gone heated. Or any discussion that goes too heated with people in the first place.
Decriminalization works pretty well here in Holland. The only problem we have is other foreigners overwhelming the bordershops, causing us to try and make laws to make it more difficult for them.
I'm looking at you Germans. Decriminalize or legalize it please, the coffeeshops I've visited all start off talking german to me, then apologizing when I talk dutch to them. Simply because there are so many germans coming to the shops to smoke. Nothing against you guys, but it does get annoying.
Point is, they're normally the nicest people to talk to, until they smoke weed!
Just like angry drinkers then? It's called losing inhibitions. Some people do it gracefully, others undergo through a different effect like becoming aggressive or overly annoying.
I know many people that show just how racist they are after a few drinks, while normally they are the nicest people to hang around. The type of intoxication is hardly relevant. If your point is both alcohol and drugs should be illegal, I would respect that opinion as it isn't as hypocritical as allowing alcohol a free pass while giving marijuana a bad rep because its a softdrug.
No problem when we are drunk. In fact we have never fought even when we are stupid drunk. But when they smoke pot, they become monsters.
On October 21 2012 17:41 JieXian wrote: Someday this guy should get a star for his OPs. Lives up to his name, though I have little knowledge on the topic
I'm surprised France isn't in orange based on what my teacher told me.
Marijuana is not decriminalized in Russia, I can't even say that the ban is not enforced, people are thrown in jail or forced to pay huge bribes for selling or sometimes simply possessing it.
On October 21 2012 18:42 Le Cheque Zo wrote: I have friends who smoke pot. I used to join them, but I notice when they smoke, they can't hold a good discussion without going needlessly aggressive and very opinionated that you'd think they want to kill people who don't follow their ideas. That;s firsthand experience, better than research!
Sounds just about right for any kind of bar discussion that has ever gone heated. Or any discussion that goes too heated with people in the first place.
Decriminalization works pretty well here in Holland. The only problem we have is other foreigners overwhelming the bordershops, causing us to try and make laws to make it more difficult for them.
I'm looking at you Germans. Decriminalize or legalize it please, the coffeeshops I've visited all start off talking german to me, then apologizing when I talk dutch to them. Simply because there are so many germans coming to the shops to smoke. Nothing against you guys, but it does get annoying.
Point is, they're normally the nicest people to talk to, until they smoke weed!
Just like angry drinkers then? It's called losing inhibitions. Some people do it gracefully, others undergo through a different effect like becoming aggressive or overly annoying.
I know many people that show just how racist they are after a few drinks, while normally they are the nicest people to hang around. The type of intoxication is hardly relevant. If your point is both alcohol and drugs should be illegal, I would respect that opinion as it isn't as hypocritical as allowing alcohol a free pass while giving marijuana a bad rep because its a softdrug.
No problem when we are drunk. In fact we have never fought even when we are stupid drunk. But when they smoke pot, they become monsters.
But you have met angry drunks before right? Or is your own anecdotal evidence based only on your group of friends.
Also, just out of curiousity. Have you been sober around stupidly drunk people before or were you drunk those times as well? Because I assume that you were sober when your friends were stoned out of their minds. Being sober around intoxicated people tends to effect your opinion a lot.
Again, nothing against you personally. But I prefer ideologically consistant opinions over hardly-thought-over opinions based only on limited anecdotal evidence.
On October 21 2012 17:59 ilbh wrote: I can't believe some people here really voted "illegalized" in the poll. I wonder if they put their "GOD HATE FAGS" sign aside or if they keep holding it up while voting. lol
wow
On October 21 2012 17:31 travis wrote: The primary reason marijuana isn't legal is that it makes people think critically. This isn't a comment on whether or not marijuana is a positive thing just my opinion on why it's illegal. Marijuana teaches many people to be more open minded and more capable of following trains of thought that they would otherwise dismiss. Again, just my opinion.
wow
it's like this thread is made to make sure marijuana never gets legalized
3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.
That's not a real argument. It's like banning water because people might fill their lungs with it.
Yes it is. Smoking 3-4 unfiltered cigarettes a day is also like smoking 20 or more filtered cigarettes.
Cannabis contains far more carcinogens than tobacco. I've smoked pot for over 10 years and I support legalization but please, don't try to blow smoke up my ass. It's cancerous.
Would you care to back this statement up?
Smoking 18-24 cigarettes a day increases lung cancer risk 25-26 times. Doll, R. and A.B. Hill, Smoking and carcinoma of the lung. Preliminary report. British Medical Journal, 1950: p. ii:739-48. Doll, R. et al., Mortality from cancer in relation to smoking: 50 years observations on British doctors. Br J Cancer, 2005. 92(3): p. 426-9.
Past cannabis use increases lung cancer risk by the factor of 3.7 and heavy cannabis use by 5.7. The journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, ISSN 1478-2715, 12/2010, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp. 328 - 334
Marijuana smoke seems considerably less cancerous than tobacco from what I can gather.
On October 21 2012 18:40 solidbebe wrote: Aggressive from weed? Lol dont make me laugh
Ever hung out in a Emergency room? I've seen people get incredibly aggressive under the influence of marijuana, mainly because of paranoid thoughts and fear.
Of course, compared to the experiences i had with drunks, the number of incidents i had with potheads is ridiculously small considering the size of those two population.
All drugs should be decriminalized because the government has no business telling me what I should or shouldn't do with my body and mind.
Using drugs doesn't pose a threat to anyone but myself, I'm an adult, I can do whatever the fuck I want.
Obviously, there should still be "driving while intoxicated" type laws, because then, your drug use becomes a hazard for people around you, but if you wanna spend your friday night watching your bedroom walls turn into waterfalls, who's to say you shouldn't?
And I have no idea why people keep bringing health statistics into the debate : it's good that drug users are informed of the risks of the substances they want to use, but why would that matter at all on whether or not we should criminalize drug use?
Driving is dangerous, we don't ban cars. Sky diving is dangerous, we don't ban parachutes either. Doing drugs is dangerous, we ban drugs. Yet we don't ban alcohol or cigarettes, which kill way more people than any other drugs. It should be pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that anti-drug laws are about anything but protecting the health of the people.
What is the point in a debate concerning the adverse health effects of marijuana when there has yet to be presented a compelling case for unhealthy things being illegal? Half the shit people do for fun is bad for them. What kind of bland world are the fuddy duddys trying to create? You're jealous over other people having fun. Get over it and focus on your own life.
On October 21 2012 19:36 smokeyhoodoo wrote: What is the point in a debate concerning the adverse health effects of marijuana when there has yet to be presented a compelling case for unhealthy things being illegal? Half the shit people do for fun is bad for them. What kind of bland world are the fuddy duddys trying to create? You're jealous over other people having fun. Get over it and focus on your own life.
I worded my statement around directly saying 1 joint=5 cigarettes or whatever number. However, here are excerpts from a 2005 study, found here.
A damning abstract:
[...]Cannabis smoke contains cannabinoids whereas tobacco smoke contains nicotine. Available scientific data, that examines the carcinogenic properties of inhaling smoke and its biological consequences, suggests reasons why tobacco smoke, but not cannabis smoke, may result in lung cancer.
Key supporting evidence for sluggaslammos post advocating non-traditional methods of ingestion:
It should be noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated.
Research that shows cannabinoids can both inhibit and stimulate cancer cell growth:
Furthermore, compounds found in cannabis have been shown to kill numerous cancer types including: lung cancer [9], breast and prostate [10], leukemia and lymphoma [11], glioma [12], skin cancer [13], and pheochromocytoma [14]. The effects of cannabinoids are complex and sometimes contradicting, often exhibiting biphasic responses. For example, in contrast to the tumor killing properties mentioned above, low doses of THC may stimulate the growth of lung cancer cells in vitro
In your study, data is used from as little as 15 cases. Although the need for additional and long term studies is plainly demonstrated, I must ask what issue you have with my post? Your own post supports my statement that cannabis smoke is cancerous. Look, if you got a bucket of lead paint and a bucket of paint made yesterday with no lead and said "Look bro, there's no lead in this it's fine". You're still wrong.
Too many stoners sing sweet gospel that they saw in a Cheech and Chong movie. Smoking pot has positive effects and negative effects. Smoking will never lack negative effects, even if it only scorches your soft lung tissue.
And as I have said already, I support legalization. Cannabis opens your mind? Surely so. But then again I've always strived for factual information whether it supports what I know and want or it doesn't. Calling cannabis risk free is bullshit. Labeling it alongside cocaine and heroin is equally bullshit.
On October 21 2012 18:40 solidbebe wrote: Aggressive from weed? Lol dont make me laugh
Ever hung out in a Emergency room? I've seen people get incredibly aggressive under the influence of marijuana, mainly because of paranoid thoughts and fear.
Of course, compared to the experiences i had with drunks, the number of incidents i had with potheads is ridiculously small considering the size of those two population.
That something I hadnt considered. I do personally know of some people who get paranoid (or at least more paranoid) when theyre high, never seen someone get aggressive from it, but I could see it happening.
On October 21 2012 19:36 smokeyhoodoo wrote: What is the point in a debate concerning the adverse health effects of marijuana when there has yet to be presented a compelling case for unhealthy things being illegal? Half the shit people do for fun is bad for them. What kind of bland world are the fuddy duddys trying to create? You're jealous over other people having fun. Get over it and focus on your own life.
NO. Legalising mariuana increases consumption amongst people by alot (fact) The use of soft drugs is nowhere in the world more common then in the netherlands, besides maybe jamaica or afghanistan, certain areas in africa. If you want see more people in your society beeing stoners then you should vote YES
On October 21 2012 19:47 Probe1 wrote: I worded my statement around directly saying 1 joint=5 cigarettes or whatever number. However, here are excerpts from a 2005 study, found here.
[...]Cannabis smoke contains cannabinoids whereas tobacco smoke contains nicotine. Available scientific data, that examines the carcinogenic properties of inhaling smoke and its biological consequences, suggests reasons why tobacco smoke, but not cannabis smoke, may result in lung cancer.
Key supporting evidence for sluggaslammos post advocating non-traditional methods of ingestion:
It should be noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated.
Research that shows cannabinoids can both inhibit and stimulate cancer cell growth:
Furthermore, compounds found in cannabis have been shown to kill numerous cancer types including: lung cancer [9], breast and prostate [10], leukemia and lymphoma [11], glioma [12], skin cancer [13], and pheochromocytoma [14]. The effects of cannabinoids are complex and sometimes contradicting, often exhibiting biphasic responses. For example, in contrast to the tumor killing properties mentioned above, low doses of THC may stimulate the growth of lung cancer cells in vitro
In your study, data is used from as little as 15 cases. Although the need for additional and long term studies is plainly demonstrated, I must ask what issue you have with my post? Your own post supports my statement that cannabis smoke is cancerous. Look, if you got a bucket of lead paint and a bucket of paint made yesterday with no lead and said "Look bro, there's no lead in this it's fine". You're still wrong.
Too many stoners sing sweet gospel that they saw in a Cheech and Chong movie. Smoking pot has positive effects and negative effects. Smoking will never lack negative effects, even if it only scorches your soft lung tissue.
And as I have said already, I support legalization. Cannabis opens your mind? Surely so. But then again I've always strived for factual information whether it supports what I know and want or it doesn't. Calling cannabis risk free is bullshit. Labeling it alongside cocaine and heroin is equally bullshit.
I agree that marijuana smoke is carcinogenic. All I wanted to contest is your statement that "cannabis contains far more carcinogens than tobacco", which does not seem to be the case, even qualitatively.
I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
this is just a little, tiny, super small amount of info.
just use google to search for, addiction, disease of addiction, is addiction a disease, etc.. it is a disease, ive learned this from a professional doctor during my stay at a treatment center.
there are such things as behavioural addictions. Eating, working, exercising, restricting, purging, gaming. sex, list goes on.
i haven't learned much about behavioural addictions.
marijuana should not be legalized from where i stand. it is a drug
Legalize it already... For example, alcohol is instrumentalized by governments to trivialize subjects as poverty, social injustice and keep the cash flowing... A neat way of still earning money from taxes and simultaneously slowly dispose of all those "losers" who can't succeed in this "society of winners" while keeping their mouths shut. Here in Germany super markets sell wine in so-called "Tetrapacks" for pretty much nothing so e.g. homeless people or people on welfare still can afford to get their fix... Also if alcohol was criminalized their would be a tremendous decrease in assaults under alcoholic influence (prohibition of drinking in public transport is getting popular, but still doesn't prevent anything)... I can just speak for myself here, but I have NEVER EVER seen anyone beating the shit out of someone without a reason while high on weed... And trust me, I'm a professional here
On October 21 2012 20:41 Marcus420 wrote: Marijuana should be legal because alcohol and cigarettes are legal.
Id love to see booze and cigarettes illegal tho... considering they will do more damage than smoking weed EVER will.
there is nothing wrong with drinking a glass of whine everyday. Booze is not by definition unhealthy.
Nothing wrong with smoking a joint, or smoking a bowl everyday too.
On October 21 2012 20:53 anonymousmale wrote: this is just a suggestion to read. its not enough info on "the disease of addiction", but its better than nothing
this is just a little, tiny, super small amount of info.
just use google to search for, addiction, disease of addiction, is addiction a disease, etc.. it is a disease, ive learned this from a professional doctor during my stay at a treatment center.
there are such things as behavioural addictions. Eating, working, exercising, restricting, purging, gaming. sex, list goes on.
i haven't learned much about behavioural addictions.
marijuana should not be legalized from where i stand. it is a drug
Alcohol is a drug. I really dont need to say anything about how its addictive aswell.
3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.
That's not a real argument. It's like banning water because people might fill their lungs with it.
Yes it is. Smoking 3-4 unfiltered cigarettes a day is also like smoking 20 or more filtered cigarettes.
Cannabis contains far more carcinogens than tobacco. I've smoked pot for over 10 years and I support legalization but please, don't try to blow smoke up my ass. It's cancerous.
Could you site some sources? It in no way shape or form contains the same amount of carinogens then tobacco with its it 591 added chemicals. Not even close.
On October 21 2012 20:53 anonymousmale wrote: this is just a suggestion to read. its not enough info on "the disease of addiction", but its better than nothing
this is just a little, tiny, super small amount of info.
just use google to search for, addiction, disease of addiction, is addiction a disease, etc.. it is a disease, ive learned this from a professional doctor during my stay at a treatment center.
there are such things as behavioural addictions. Eating, working, exercising, restricting, purging, gaming. sex, list goes on.
i haven't learned much about behavioural addictions.
marijuana should not be legalized from where i stand. it is a drug
Alcohol is a drug. I really dont need to say anything about how its addictive aswell.
Anything is addictive, god damn cheeseburgers are killing the usa. Due to food addictions, should we make them illegal as well?
It's like this, weed has killed 0 people, ever. (not including someone getting shot over it, etc)
Falling coconuts kill something like 9 people annually, so in short.
Legalize/Decriminalize For some users, perhaps as many as 10 per cent, cannabis leads to psychological dependence, but there is scant evidence that it carries a risk of true addiction. Unlike cigarette smokers, most users do not take the drug on a daily basis, and usually abandon it in their twenties or thirties.
Is true addiction a accepted term for this? I understand the point if it means not physically addicted as the body becomes towards Nicotine. But it makes me sad that people would call it true as in making the opposite "untrue".
It's very much an addiction when it's psychological as well and it is true when it is a addiction.
There's another important point which I missed among yours.
From a swedish newspaper based on studies from a psychologist specialising on cannabis effects on the brain. I did a google translte beneath here on a part I find important, talking about how a long use of it slows down the development of your brain. + Show Spoiler +
- Also erodes cannabis you as emotional individual, says Thomas Lundqvist. Do you take cannabis you strengthen not the nice moments in life, there will be no careful processing of impressions. You get a "Teflon brain."
That one is "stupid" to smoke hashish were many who discovered during the 60th century hippievåg, the drug became popular. Recent American studies now confirm that cannabis can cause permanent damage to the cognitive (cognitive) abilities.
Cannabinoids reduce activity in the parts of the brain that coordinates the mind functions we need to cope with everyday life. Cannabis can disrupt working memory (the memory that enables us to keep the information current for a short time) and episodic memory (memory for self-knowledge).
The cognitive effects of cannabis are different depending on how often and how long you used it. In the beginning most affected working memory, resulting in disruptions in concentration, attention and the ability to store and process new information. A long-term abuse impairs the ability to plan, interpret others' motives and opinions, and manage complex information. The addict may be difficult to find words difficult to understand what others say and difficult to estimate the time. He / she does not understand the cause of the mistake, forget contracts, review becomes impaired and thought paths constantly interrupted.
Most people who smoke pot stop just because they discover that they are stupid, according to Thomas Lundqvist.
I smoke Mariujana and I enjoy it very much. I started doing it with some old friends of mine. They did it to escape from problems. I did it when I was in a good mood and wanted it to become a even better one.
One of them became so used to the paranoid part which the drug can give you that he stayed paranoid even when he didn't smoke. Another one of them is completely hidden from the world. He goes to work, comes home, doesn't answer his phone when it calls and shows up in the weekend as drunkasaurus rex. (drugs as escapist use has done a part in this social development of his). I get high a couple of times a year and still use it after the same rules I mentioned before.
I miss critical points against maruijana in your post. I understand that when a person is for legalisation he doesn't want to go deep into that, but I think that one still could be for legalisation while watching all the negative effects it can have.
Those two friends of mine. They could have looked for help if maruijana abuse wasn't stigmatised and tabooed. Their families could have been understanding about if they had learnt about the drug.
Abuse of the drug has decreased in Holland after it became legalised. Today around 50% of Denmark are open for legalisation after around 20 years of Christiania existing. Before that around 5% were open for legalisation. So if people get to know the drug and not judge it from prejudice and short articles and Fox Newslike reportages. Then they open up to the idea. And people who end up in abuse could seek help because they wouldn't have to hide their abuse.
On October 21 2012 20:59 Probe1 wrote: Read the thread.
I did, you mean your post. Where it says
[...]Cannabis smoke contains cannabinoids whereas tobacco smoke contains nicotine. Available scientific data, that examines the carcinogenic properties of inhaling smoke and its biological consequences, suggests reasons why tobacco smoke, but not cannabis smoke, may result in lung cancer.
and....
furthermore, compounds found in cannabis have been shown to kill numerous cancer types including: lung cancer [9], breast and prostate [10], leukemia and lymphoma [11], glioma [12], skin cancer [13], and pheochromocytoma [14]. The effects of cannabinoids are complex and sometimes contradicting, often exhibiting biphasic responses. For example, in contrast to the tumor killing properties mentioned above, low doses of THC may stimulate the growth of lung cancer cells in vitro
MAY stimulate, is not WILL stimulate.
Black and white man, concrete proven facts. Not here say, and speculation.
On October 21 2012 20:53 anonymousmale wrote: this is just a suggestion to read. its not enough info on "the disease of addiction", but its better than nothing
this is just a little, tiny, super small amount of info.
just use google to search for, addiction, disease of addiction, is addiction a disease, etc.. it is a disease, ive learned this from a professional doctor during my stay at a treatment center.
there are such things as behavioural addictions. Eating, working, exercising, restricting, purging, gaming. sex, list goes on.
i haven't learned much about behavioural addictions.
marijuana should not be legalized from where i stand. it is a drug
Alcohol is a drug. I really dont need to say anything about how its addictive aswell.
true, all drugs are drugs.
the thing about the addict vs non addict.
addict: once inhaled, craves physically, mental obsession reoccurs.
non-addict: can use once, and leave it alone.
suggestion: have you ever opened a bottle of booze and could not finish drinking until the night was done, craved more alcohol. then you are probably an addict.
im no doctor and this is just one way of assessing yourself, which i never recommend any one without proper experience.
my argument is on behalf of addict vs non addict facts. i luckily made it into a 28 day treatment program for drug abuse, in which one of my drug of choices was marijuana, some people there were just strictly addicted to marijuana. its not about the health facts for me, its about the disease of addiction.
this disease is genetic, we are born with it, it does not have to be inherited from our parents directly.
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Ya know... I don't know why drug topics keep coming up on TL.
I beleive in free speech, and the freedom of opinion. I don't even really care what happens in your own home.
TL's is a pretty open discussion forum.
However: Why does TL permit discussion regarding the use, trafficing, distribution, and promotion of the use of a drug which is criminally illigal in most countries around the world?
This is not the first thread regarding the subject.
I won't even get into if MJ should be legal or not, why, etc etc. I don't care. This thread is one of many that simply tries to justify why an illigal drug should not be, and further discusses use, trafficing, distribution etc etc.
On October 21 2012 18:34 Alala-P wrote: Just read in the new scientist (magazine) that weed lowers IQ. they followed 1000 people from birth until age 38
okay so having a low IQ score is related to weed use? How do they know that those people aren't just below average? And how does that justify it being illegal?
I know a so many stupid people that don't drink or smoke weed. What should we do about them?
Dude I'm not relinking the very things I linked because you were too lazy to click on the sources. I'm not here to convince you of the validity of research. I believe the research is valid enough to merit further research and a general advisory that cannabis contains many carcinogens, moreso than tobacco.
I had an ostensive series of posts with someone and if you cannot read them and find the answers you are asking, then I cannot help you.
On October 21 2012 21:28 Probe1 wrote: Dude I'm not relinking the very things I linked because you were too lazy to click on the sources. I'm not here to convince you of the validity of research. I believe the research is valid enough to merit further research and a general advisory that cannabis contains many carcinogens, moreso than tobacco.
I had an ostensive series of posts with someone and if you cannot read them and find the answers you are asking, then I cannot help you.
Dude, I read all your posts. Clicked on what few links you provided. Nothing you linked/posted backs up any of your claims, hence why I am asking for more sources. If you can't be bothered to back up your statements, then maybe you shouldn't be making blanket statements.
It's illegal here in China, but really unenforced, you can buy weed in front of any club, cops don't care, most of them are not even trained to recognize weed/the smell of weed. As long as you don't carry over 30 grams with you, you're good !
OEHHA’s search for scientific journal articles on the topic of marijuana smoking and cancer identified a total of 60 relevant articles representing 27 controlled epidemiological studies (21 of only direct marijuana smoking, five of only parental marijuana smoking, and one of both direct and parental marijuana smoking), 15 case report articles (all regarding direct marijuana smoking), eight review articles, and nine commentaries/editorials (Table 1). The following discussion focuses on categories of cancer for which a statistically significant association with marijuana smoking has been reported.
Bonus: It took one google search, approximately 4 seconds for me to find this list which is independent of my earlier links. It took a further 20 seconds (twenty) to find the relevant table.
Legalizing cannabis is the right thing to do but acting like it's gods green gift is for idiot stoners that deserve no more respect than drunks.
I notice no mention of mental health concerns about frequent marijuana usage making the onset of schizophrenia earlier in individuals already predisposed to schizophrenia. That's been fairly well documented. Also, though anecdotally, nearly everyone I know who quit pot (including me), did so because of the anxiety and paranoia we began to predominately feel while under its influence, and well, because it is still considered illegal and there are drug tests by employers and such.
Anyways, concerning legality, it overall does a lot less harm than other drugs that are legal - most noteably, alcohol. Legalize it.
On October 21 2012 17:31 travis wrote: The primary reason marijuana isn't legal is that it makes people think critically. This isn't a comment on whether or not marijuana is a positive thing just my opinion on why it's illegal. Marijuana teaches many people to be more open minded and more capable of following trains of thought that they would otherwise dismiss. Again, just my opinion.
haha, i guess i'm not open enough to refute the reversibility of these correlational relations.
1 of the main reasons to illegalize it, is that many seem to think that it leads to hard drugs. However, in Holland, there has been researches showing that the consumption of hard drugs there is lower compared to other western countries. Also, in Denmark we have something called Christiana (free town inside of copenhagen where they sell a ton of marijuana) and there you won't find any hard drugs either.
OEHHA’s search for scientific journal articles on the topic of marijuana smoking and cancer identified a total of 60 relevant articles representing 27 controlled epidemiological studies (21 of only direct marijuana smoking, five of only parental marijuana smoking, and one of both direct and parental marijuana smoking), 15 case report articles (all regarding direct marijuana smoking), eight review articles, and nine commentaries/editorials (Table 1). The following discussion focuses on categories of cancer for which a statistically significant association with marijuana smoking has been reported.
Bonus: It took one google search, approximately 4 seconds for me to find this list which is independent of my earlier links. It took a further 20 seconds (twenty) to find the relevant table.
Legalizing cannabis is the right thing to do but acting like it's gods green gift is for idiot stoners that deserve no more respect than drunks.
Well first, I never disagreed saying it had 0 carcinogens. You said, it's worse than a cigg. STILL you have not shown a source supporting THAT CLAIM.
Any sort of combustible plant being consumed through your lungs will have SOME carcinogens, herp.
So, you actually really didn't prove anything except say that I lied (which I clearly didn't) and that we are idiot stoners, no better than an alcoholic.
No offense, but did the stoners ostracize u in high school or something. Did you grow up with "weed is the devil" parents?
We are a peace loving people, who can smoke 10 doobs in 2 hrs, and still go to work the next day. Function in society ( sometimes better than most sober people) as well as other shit. Try that off 10 beers.
Calling people "idiot stoners" without knowing the person, is as bad as being straight up racist IMO. People who seem stupid, while stoned. Were dumb before, the weed just amplified their own personal stupidity. The plant gets to much of the blame.
-I for one, live in the (un)Official weed mecca of the world (vancouver) -I blaze everyday, most of the day. Unless I'm at work. -I work 40+ hours a week, with a better than average income (especially for a 26 year old) -I have a University level education -Of course I gradded high school
Smoking cannabis is probably one of the stupidest things anyone can do with the drug. It should be vaporized for the best efficiency and dosage control. Vaporizer technology has advanced enough that it is affordable, easy, and fast. Eating products containing cannabis can be a healthy way to imbibe if the plants are grown under hygienic conditions.
After cannabis is legalized in the US, scientific research on the plant will blossom, no pun intended. After several years and clinical trials we'll see various drugs extracted from cannabis that provide therapeutic benefits without the detrimental side effects.
On October 21 2012 21:57 Zealotdriver wrote: Smoking cannabis is probably one of the stupidest things anyone can do with the drug. It should be vaporized for the best efficiency and dosage control. Vaporizer technology has advanced enough that it is affordable, easy, and fast. Eating products containing cannabis can be a healthy way to imbibe if the plants are grown under hygienic conditions.
After cannabis is legalized in the US, scientific research on the plant will blossom, no pun intended. After several years and clinical trials we'll see various drugs extracted from cannabis that provide therapeutic benefits without the detrimental side effects.
The psychoactive part aside, it's baffeling how in the US you can buy/own/import hemp. But not grow it. Hemp is the greatest plant ever. And doesn't get you high at all, it's just the male side of the cannabis plant. - It is one of the best ways, and one of the most easily digestible sources of protein for your body ( Hemp Force Protein Powder for example) - The seeds, if mixed in a salad or something are GREAT for your body - The oils have so many different uses, from skin creams to fuel sources - The fibers make the best clothes, better than cotton - You can weave it to build structures, including make "plywood" stronger than any d-fir or spruce based plywood - Fuel source - Did I say fuel source?
That's just a few out 100's of different uses for hemp. Damn industrialists are keeping it illegal so they don't have to convert their mills, and is a damn shame.
On October 21 2012 18:17 jimbob615 wrote: well from a society point of view, people who smoke weed are also the the laziest and most unproductive people. i'm not sure i'd want that legalised so everyone goes on welfare to get high every day.
From personal experience I can say that's not true, some of the best workers I know also smoke weed in their free time.
i believe you, but like anything in life, there will be a spread from one extreme to another.
i can counter by saying from my personal experience, the laziest people i've met, EVER, also smoke weed in their free time. a better way to look at it is, on average, is someone going to be slower, more dim-witted and lazier after smoking? on average, i think you will find the answer to this is yes. and is that something we want the masses to have open access to?
I know a guy that doesn't smoke weed or cigs. He is a shitty worker always rushing home as soon as 5 hits and HATES working late. Another guy I work with never complains when asked to work overtime. But he usually has weed on him and nvr complains on working late. he is a descent worker.
OEHHA’s search for scientific journal articles on the topic of marijuana smoking and cancer identified a total of 60 relevant articles representing 27 controlled epidemiological studies (21 of only direct marijuana smoking, five of only parental marijuana smoking, and one of both direct and parental marijuana smoking), 15 case report articles (all regarding direct marijuana smoking), eight review articles, and nine commentaries/editorials (Table 1). The following discussion focuses on categories of cancer for which a statistically significant association with marijuana smoking has been reported.
Bonus: It took one google search, approximately 4 seconds for me to find this list which is independent of my earlier links. It took a further 20 seconds (twenty) to find the relevant table.
Legalizing cannabis is the right thing to do but acting like it's gods green gift is for idiot stoners that deserve no more respect than drunks.
Well first, I never disagreed saying it had 0 carcinogens. You said, it's worse than a cigg. STILL you have not shown a source supporting THAT CLAIM.
Any sort of combustible plant being consumed through your lungs will have SOME carcinogens, herp.
So, you actually really didn't prove anything except say that I lied (which I clearly didn't) and that we are idiot stoners, no better than an alcoholic.
No offense, but did the stoners ostracize u in high school or something. Did you grow up with "weed is the devil" parents?
We are a peace loving people, who can smoke 10 doobs in 2 hrs, and still go to work the next day. Function in society ( sometimes better than most sober people) as well as other shit. Try that off 10 beers.
Calling people "idiot stoners" without knowing the person, is as bad as being straight up racist IMO. People who seem stupid, while stoned. Were dumb before, the weed just amplified their own personal stupidity. The plant gets to much of the blame.
-I for one, live in the (un)Official weed mecca of the world (vancouver) -I blaze everyday, most of the day. Unless I'm at work. -I work 40+ hours a week, with a better than average income (especially for a 26 year old) -I have a University level education -Of course I gradded high school
So your preconceived notions, are arbitrary.
Just... wow, did you actually read all of his posts? From what I read he is not even close to advocating "weed is the devil" nor displaying traits that suggest that the "stoners ostracized him". All he is trying to say is that, it's not totally safe and as much as we enjoy it (Probe1 included) and would like it to be legalized we should be aware that there are risks involved and making arguments pretending that it is totally safe are false.
I vote for decriminalization. Total legalization seems ultimately counter productive to me, on intuition. I've smoked weed regularly for about 2 years now and my thoughts on legalization have swayed back and forth a lot.
OEHHA’s search for scientific journal articles on the topic of marijuana smoking and cancer identified a total of 60 relevant articles representing 27 controlled epidemiological studies (21 of only direct marijuana smoking, five of only parental marijuana smoking, and one of both direct and parental marijuana smoking), 15 case report articles (all regarding direct marijuana smoking), eight review articles, and nine commentaries/editorials (Table 1). The following discussion focuses on categories of cancer for which a statistically significant association with marijuana smoking has been reported.
Bonus: It took one google search, approximately 4 seconds for me to find this list which is independent of my earlier links. It took a further 20 seconds (twenty) to find the relevant table.
Legalizing cannabis is the right thing to do but acting like it's gods green gift is for idiot stoners that deserve no more respect than drunks.
Well first, I never disagreed saying it had 0 carcinogens. You said, it's worse than a cigg. STILL you have not shown a source supporting THAT CLAIM.
Any sort of combustible plant being consumed through your lungs will have SOME carcinogens, herp.
So, you actually really didn't prove anything except say that I lied (which I clearly didn't) and that we are idiot stoners, no better than an alcoholic.
No offense, but did the stoners ostracize u in high school or something. Did you grow up with "weed is the devil" parents?
We are a peace loving people, who can smoke 10 doobs in 2 hrs, and still go to work the next day. Function in society ( sometimes better than most sober people) as well as other shit. Try that off 10 beers.
Calling people "idiot stoners" without knowing the person, is as bad as being straight up racist IMO. People who seem stupid, while stoned. Were dumb before, the weed just amplified their own personal stupidity. The plant gets to much of the blame.
-I for one, live in the (un)Official weed mecca of the world (vancouver) -I blaze everyday, most of the day. Unless I'm at work. -I work 40+ hours a week, with a better than average income (especially for a 26 year old) -I have a University level education -Of course I gradded high school
So your preconceived notions, are arbitrary.
Just... wow, did you actually read all of his posts? From what I read he is not even close to advocating "weed is the devil" nor displaying traits that suggest that the "stoners ostracized him". All he is trying to say is that, it's not totally safe and as much as we enjoy it (Probe1 included) and would like it to be legalized we should be aware that there are risks involved and making arguments pretending that it is totally safe are false.
The ostracation/devil parent comment was more in response to his initial "idiot stoner drunk" remark. Once again, I was only looking for sources on his claim that it is WORSE THAN TOBACCO. I never said smoking weed is going to build muscle mass, and improve your cardio.
I'm all for legalizing marijuana. Maybe because I've been smoking it almost daily for 2 years now. I haven't really noticed that many changes since i started smoking, my memory is a bit worse (was shit to being with) but during the longer breaks I've head, like 3 weeks, I've noticed it returning somewhat.
And for those who say you get lazy and don't do shit all day, I workout 5 days a week and work at the same time, I just smoke in the evenings. As far as health risks regarding the drug there's a lot of studies saying different things, but from what I've "researched" myself it does seem to be less harmful than tobacco and alcohol.
"Cannabis smoke contains numerous carcinogens.[5][6][7] Surprisingly, an extensive study published in 2006 by Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles found that there is no significant link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer.[8] The study, which involved a large population sample (1,200 people with lung, neck, or head cancer, and a matching group of 1,040 without cancer) found no correlation between marijuana smoking and increased lung cancer risk, with the same being true for head and neck cancers as well. The results indicated no correlation between long and short-term cannabis use and cancer, indicating a possible therapeutic effect. Extensive cellular studies and some studies in animal models suggest that THC or cannabidiol has antitumor properties, either by encouraging programmed cell death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous, or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors, or both.[9]
Prior, a 1997 study examining the records of 64,855 Kaiser patients (14,033 of whom identified themselves as current smokers), also found no positive correlation between cannabis use and cancer.[10]"
None of the proponents of the criminalisation of marijuana or any other drugs on this topic has adressed the "so what if it's unhealthy?" remark that me and a few others made several pages back.
You people keep debating on something that is entirely irrelevant.
So let me summarize it once again : who gives a fuck if drugs are bad for your health? Why would that be a reason to outlaw them?
Then we should also outlaw bacon, sodas, sex, sky-diving because those are all things that are health-hazards.
I don't care it if becomes fully accepted and legal, but at the very least decriminalize it, it's fucking stupid how much of the US prison system is taken up by non-violent offenders blowing billions of tax payer's money.
OEHHA’s search for scientific journal articles on the topic of marijuana smoking and cancer identified a total of 60 relevant articles representing 27 controlled epidemiological studies (21 of only direct marijuana smoking, five of only parental marijuana smoking, and one of both direct and parental marijuana smoking), 15 case report articles (all regarding direct marijuana smoking), eight review articles, and nine commentaries/editorials (Table 1). The following discussion focuses on categories of cancer for which a statistically significant association with marijuana smoking has been reported.
Bonus: It took one google search, approximately 4 seconds for me to find this list which is independent of my earlier links. It took a further 20 seconds (twenty) to find the relevant table.
Legalizing cannabis is the right thing to do but acting like it's gods green gift is for idiot stoners that deserve no more respect than drunks.
Well first, I never disagreed saying it had 0 carcinogens. You said, it's worse than a cigg. STILL you have not shown a source supporting THAT CLAIM.
Any sort of combustible plant being consumed through your lungs will have SOME carcinogens, herp.
So, you actually really didn't prove anything except say that I lied (which I clearly didn't) and that we are idiot stoners, no better than an alcoholic.
No offense, but did the stoners ostracize u in high school or something. Did you grow up with "weed is the devil" parents?
We are a peace loving people, who can smoke 10 doobs in 2 hrs, and still go to work the next day. Function in society ( sometimes better than most sober people) as well as other shit. Try that off 10 beers.
Calling people "idiot stoners" without knowing the person, is as bad as being straight up racist IMO. People who seem stupid, while stoned. Were dumb before, the weed just amplified their own personal stupidity. The plant gets to much of the blame.
-I for one, live in the (un)Official weed mecca of the world (vancouver) -I blaze everyday, most of the day. Unless I'm at work. -I work 40+ hours a week, with a better than average income (especially for a 26 year old) -I have a University level education -Of course I gradded high school
So your preconceived notions, are arbitrary.
you really think you have a better life inhaling this drug every moment you're awake and able to, than if you didn't?
Good information in this OP. Something you don't get a lot when it comes to information about marijuana - so many people want to give false information about this "drug"
Here is a reason for it to be legalized; it makes sex even better.
On October 21 2012 17:55 FXOUnstable wrote: Personally I was never a fan of marijuana, The people who tend to be "addicted" to it for lack of a better word and smoke heavily that I personally have ever known were always the type of people who couldn't keep a job and were not the smartest people, I figured this was a coincidence.
But then when I was at university I witnessed a straight A/HD student start smoking and within 6 months he didn't care about anything other than smoking it and even quit university and went on welfare. so it got me thinking, what is the tradeoff, having it illegal and people being hurt trying to get it that way, or having it legal and running the risk of those with addictive personalities get hooked on it, but that being said its just as much a risk that they get addicted to anything else.
That being said i'm sure there are many people who have the self control to do it moderately, so really why isn't it legalized yet when cigarettes and alcohol is pretty much the same thing.
You can make the same argument about any drug, especially alcohol which is actually addictive and kills thousands of people every year.
My experience of weed is completely different, I know a few people who can't hold down a job etc but thats not because of the weed its because they were wasters anyway. The vast majority of my friends smoke weed and those who aren't performers/actors/dancers all hold down regular jobs and are in fact fairly successful. One of my closest friends is a reporter for a national newspaper and smokes weed nearly daily, silly cow can't roll a joint mind you lol.
I've been smoking weed since 12 years old, I later became a cocaine addict and kicked it. In no way way the weed what lead me on to harder drugs, I made that choice because I like getting high. I know plenty of people who have never touched weed in their entire life who became cocaine addicts via going to the pub with their friends drinking.
Everything is pretty much anecdotal evidence in these matters, my personal experience is that weed enhances the lives of the vast majority of users, it opens their mind, it helps them relax after a stressful day etc. There are always those who will ruin their life because of drugs, but thats not the drugs fault. I was a cocaine addict, I made that choice, I saw it coming and didn't stop, I take responsibility for my actions. I've never robbed anyone to pay for my habits, I've never harmed anyone because of my habits, its my choice what I do and I choose to both be a drug user and a good human being.
Anyone who votes for marijuana to be illegal, then you should also be against alcohol being legal, as that's actually capable of killing people directly/indirectly through consumption.
Anyone who votes for marijuana to be illegal, then you should also be against sugar. Over consumption of sugar is what causes certain to be fat. (Those who over consume.) The NYC ban on large soda's is probably something you actually voted for. Not only that, but both alcohol and sugar can be addicting in the same way that marijuana can be. By this, then you should vote that all video games, movies, music, art, pleasure, anything in life should be illegal. Everything can be addicting either mentally or physically.
So, if you vote for marijuana to be illegal, think about what you're really voting for and then look at the other things you most likely don't vote for.
OEHHA’s search for scientific journal articles on the topic of marijuana smoking and cancer identified a total of 60 relevant articles representing 27 controlled epidemiological studies (21 of only direct marijuana smoking, five of only parental marijuana smoking, and one of both direct and parental marijuana smoking), 15 case report articles (all regarding direct marijuana smoking), eight review articles, and nine commentaries/editorials (Table 1). The following discussion focuses on categories of cancer for which a statistically significant association with marijuana smoking has been reported.
Bonus: It took one google search, approximately 4 seconds for me to find this list which is independent of my earlier links. It took a further 20 seconds (twenty) to find the relevant table.
Legalizing cannabis is the right thing to do but acting like it's gods green gift is for idiot stoners that deserve no more respect than drunks.
Well first, I never disagreed saying it had 0 carcinogens. You said, it's worse than a cigg. STILL you have not shown a source supporting THAT CLAIM.
Any sort of combustible plant being consumed through your lungs will have SOME carcinogens, herp.
So, you actually really didn't prove anything except say that I lied (which I clearly didn't) and that we are idiot stoners, no better than an alcoholic.
No offense, but did the stoners ostracize u in high school or something. Did you grow up with "weed is the devil" parents?
We are a peace loving people, who can smoke 10 doobs in 2 hrs, and still go to work the next day. Function in society ( sometimes better than most sober people) as well as other shit. Try that off 10 beers.
Calling people "idiot stoners" without knowing the person, is as bad as being straight up racist IMO. People who seem stupid, while stoned. Were dumb before, the weed just amplified their own personal stupidity. The plant gets to much of the blame.
-I for one, live in the (un)Official weed mecca of the world (vancouver) -I blaze everyday, most of the day. Unless I'm at work. -I work 40+ hours a week, with a better than average income (especially for a 26 year old) -I have a University level education -Of course I gradded high school
So your preconceived notions, are arbitrary.
you really think you have a better life inhaling this drug every moment you're awake and able to, than if you didn't?
That honestly, has nothing to do with anything. It's a self choice, the same as going to church. It's what I choose to do, and am not hurting anyone. And your opinion is different from mine.
The primary reason marijuana isn't legal is that it makes people think critically. This isn't a comment on whether or not marijuana is a positive thing just my opinion on why it's illegal. Marijuana teaches many people to be more open minded and more capable of following trains of thought that they would otherwise dismiss. Again, just my opinion.
Marijuana doesn't make people think critically, it inhibits critical thinking. Perhaps you meant creatively (open minded like you say later)? Either way, smoking weed doesn't increase cognitive ability. You could look at it like alcohol and say that they are less inhibited, but I don't agree that smoking weed (or drinking alcohol or doing shrooms or etc) is a good activity for your brain.
People should stop caring about other people so much and just let them do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone but themselves. If they want to smoke marijuana let them. I hope it gets legalized, I also hope they tax the shit out of it and put an appropriate age limit.
On October 22 2012 00:40 Glowinglight wrote: People should stop caring about other people so much and just let them do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone but themselves. If they want to smoke marijuana let them. I hope it gets legalized, I also hope they tax the shit out of it and put an appropriate age limit.
What's an appropriate age level? Is it 25, when the body stops growing? Is it 21, because of the drinking age? Is it 18 because of the "adulthood" we put on that number? Is it 16, which is the legal age for consensual sex in Mexico? Should it be 13, when kids start not being kids but transform in the adults they will be?
On October 22 2012 00:47 DigiGnar wrote: What's an appropriate age level? Is it 25, when the body stops growing? Is it 21, because of the drinking age? Is it 18 because of the "adulthood" we put on that number? Is it 16, which is the legal age for consensual sex in Mexico? Should it be 13, when kids start not being kids but transform in the adults they will be?
I would hope it isn't up to one person to make the decision. Though if it was up to me I would probably start at the age of 25, have it stay that way for a year then make it open to vote down the age limit.
I think its funny when everyone says that it shouldn't be legal. only stupid people use. look at sieve Jobs. created the first OS for a computer. He used every drug known to man kind. and your telling me someone who smokes weed is a dumb fuck. Honestly if people didnt have to hide it. like 60 % of the worlds population smokes weed. Another thing to bring up how is alcohol any better. how many Marijuana related deaths do you hear about a year? NONE! how many people die from drunk driving how many people die from drinking to much or are hurt and injured bc of alcohol. Alcohol is like the leading death rate in the US. so dont tell me Marijuana is worse!.
On October 21 2012 17:59 ilbh wrote: I can't believe some people here really voted "illegalized" in the poll. I wonder if they put their "GOD HATE FAGS" sign aside or if they keep holding it up while voting. lol
On October 21 2012 17:31 travis wrote: The primary reason marijuana isn't legal is that it makes people think critically. This isn't a comment on whether or not marijuana is a positive thing just my opinion on why it's illegal. Marijuana teaches many people to be more open minded and more capable of following trains of thought that they would otherwise dismiss. Again, just my opinion.
wow
it's like this thread is made to make sure marijuana never gets legalized
hi could you explain why you quoted me next to the other guy?
I'd vote for the decriminalization, and obviously go for the actual drug dealers, rather than those that consume it, or have 1 or 2 plants in their backyard, also have it as prescription drug requiring the age of 18 to use it (one step ahead considering how many people will get a prescription to use it as a recreational drug, and before the age of 18 it seems to have some effect in the brain development), also I'd implement good drug education in schools, and show how in reality, alcohol and cigarettes are killing the most people, and specifically in my countries point of view, alcohol is the true problem.
On October 21 2012 21:46 EscPlan9 wrote: I notice no mention of mental health concerns about frequent marijuana usage making the onset of schizophrenia earlier in individuals already predisposed to schizophrenia. That's been fairly well documented. Also, though anecdotally, nearly everyone I know who quit pot (including me), did so because of the anxiety and paranoia we began to predominately feel while under its influence, and well, because it is still considered illegal and there are drug tests by employers and such.
Anyways, concerning legality, it overall does a lot less harm than other drugs that are legal - most noteably, alcohol. Legalize it.
Probably because genetic factors are far more significant to the onset of schizophrenia than anything else.
Weed, like anything else that effects your serotonin levels, can cause positive or negative symptoms to the condition. Just because some people can have negative symptoms doesn't mean it's bad for everyone with schizophrenia, and should never be used again.
I mean fuck, look at the back of anti depression pills, the side effects of them are often, depression and suicide. But they can be more beneficial than destructive, if used in the right circumstances.
A quick comparison with Alcohol, reveals to anyone with eyes to see, that weed is overrated in its destructiveness, and that if it really is damaging enough to be forbiden, alcohol should have never ever ever ever ever been legal in the first place, because it destroys both your body and mind when abused, much viciously than weed, and causes chemical and psychological dependance.
Despite that, you will never see "drinking kills" next to a bottle of beer, gee I wonder why
But lets keep arguing about a scrizophrenics as if they are being forced into smoking weed, thats a more sane and proper discussion.
On October 22 2012 01:56 D10 wrote: A quick comparison with Alcohol, reveals to anyone with eyes to see, that weed is overrated in its destructiveness, and that if it really is damaging enough to be forbiden, alcohol should have never ever ever ever ever been legal in the first place, because it destroys both your body and mind when abused, much viciously than weed, and causes chemical and psychological dependance.
Despite that, you will never see "drinking kills" next to a bottle of beer, gee I wonder why
But lets keep arguing about a scrizophrenics as if they are being forced into smoking weed, thats a more sane and proper discussion.
Not to mention ciggarettes. The fact that they are legal, while weed remains illegal. Shows you just how backwards the system is.
On October 22 2012 02:09 Xiphos wrote: Whoever saying that Marijuanna isn't addictive is totally hypocritical. Same applies to those implying that it have no side effects.
On October 22 2012 01:56 D10 wrote: A quick comparison with Alcohol, reveals to anyone with eyes to see, that weed is overrated in its destructiveness, and that if it really is damaging enough to be forbiden, alcohol should have never ever ever ever ever been legal in the first place, because it destroys both your body and mind when abused, much viciously than weed, and causes chemical and psychological dependance.
Despite that, you will never see "drinking kills" next to a bottle of beer, gee I wonder why
But lets keep arguing about a scrizophrenics as if they are being forced into smoking weed, thats a more sane and proper discussion.
I've abused both at different times. Alcohol is pretty taxing on your body when you drink daily and weed is taxing on your mind. With that being said neither should be used daily and I don't think anyone can justify one or the other being illegal in any intelligent fashion. Governments spend way too much tax payer money fighting marijuana and they also ruin peoples lives just because they smoke it.
All in all I never understood why it's illegal, it doesn't make sense and the government has no business telling people what types of mostly harmless drugs when not abused they can put into their bodies.
On October 22 2012 02:09 Xiphos wrote: Whoever saying that Marijuanna isn't addictive is totally hypocritical. Same applies to those implying that it have no side effects.
Marijuana is not addictive, its habit forming, which is similar to addiction, but not quite the same.
On October 22 2012 02:09 Xiphos wrote: Whoever saying that Marijuanna isn't addictive is totally hypocritical. Same applies to those implying that it have no side effects.
You've completely misunderstood the meaning of "hypocritical"
On October 21 2012 17:31 travis wrote: The primary reason marijuana isn't legal is that it makes people think critically. This isn't a comment on whether or not marijuana is a positive thing just my opinion on why it's illegal. Marijuana teaches many people to be more open minded and more capable of following trains of thought that they would otherwise dismiss. Again, just my opinion.
Marijuana is surely unhealthy as you are putting smoke in your lungs. But this isn't a justification for it being illegal. It has no synthetic chemicals in it unlikely cigarettes and is definitely healthier.
I smoked marijuana for years and didn't have much trouble quitting. It is not physically addictive, and being psychologically addictive isn't really a point. Psychological addiction is the same as wanting something because you know you like it.
The 'medical use' section doesn't even contain a reason for keeping it illegal.
The entire war on drugs is bogus anyways it's about money and control not about doing anything good.
The primary reason marijuana isn't legal is that it makes people think critically.
The primary reason everything is illegal is because it empowers the people and our alien overlords do not like that.
Marijuana changes people's lives, but I don't care. As long as they don't start blaming others for their faults of course. Then I am for public beating with a trout. Also, dosh. Big people likey dosh.
Well the only other reason I could accept as being the primary reason is that there is too much money to be made from the war on drugs. Thanks for mocking me by the way, it's a mature way of refuting someone else's opinion.
On October 22 2012 02:09 Xiphos wrote: Whoever saying that Marijuanna isn't addictive is totally hypocritical. Same applies to those implying that it have no side effects.
Addictive? Have you ever seen a Cannabis user act like a crack head? I sure haven't, and never will.
I smoke/eat cannabis for pain relief instead of taking liver/kidney killing medication. In fact i haven't ate/smoked any in over 2 months and never had any urges like a "addicted" person would. I only smoke/eat Cannabis when i have extreme pain, and it works wonders. Where's this addiction you speak of? Have a credible source of your claims?
Side effects? Sure, i might eat my entire stash of Cheez-its maybe and laugh my ass off at Bill Cosby Himself for the 1000th time. Yeah i guess those are pretty horrible side effects. Again, source of your claims? The good will outweigh the bad by a pretty big margin i would assume regardless.
The only people that would even come close to being "addicted" is kids. But even then half of them do it to fit in or look cool and have no clue of the medicinal benefits of Cannabis or the actual enjoyment of the plant really is about. Just a thought.
You seem highly mis-informed about Cannabis. You should read into it a bit honestly, very interesting stuff.
Anyways, Marijuana should be legal, just like it used to be. Too many benefits from 1 plant to be made illegal in the first place. Hemp anyone? Huge Medicinal benefits? So many good things from this plant could turn a lot of our current problems around for everyone.
On October 21 2012 18:17 jimbob615 wrote: well from a society point of view, people who smoke weed are also the the laziest and most unproductive people. i'm not sure i'd want that legalised so everyone goes on welfare to get high every day.
From personal experience I can say that's not true, some of the best workers I know also smoke weed in their free time.
i believe you, but like anything in life, there will be a spread from one extreme to another.
i can counter by saying from my personal experience, the laziest people i've met, EVER, also smoke weed in their free time. a better way to look at it is, on average, is someone going to be slower, more dim-witted and lazier after smoking? on average, i think you will find the answer to this is yes. and is that something we want the masses to have open access to?
have you ever taken a statistics class? what you're describing is actually association. there is a difference between causation and association. the argument that some hard workers smoke weed isn't saying weed makes you a hard worker, but that you can smoke weed and still be productive, giving the responsibility to the hands of the user and not the drug. so i don't think people would be more or less lazier if we legalized it. all it would change is that it lets people who are legally responsible smoke weed and makes it much easier on the marijuana smoking community as a whole.
On October 22 2012 02:27 travis wrote: Well the only other reason I could accept as being the primary reason is that there is too much money to be made from the war on drugs. Thanks for mocking me by the way, it's a mature way of refuting someone else's opinion.
I match my maturity to the intellectual depth of the comments to which I am replying. I find it helps people with very shallow minds understand what I say better.
Consider this: The war on drugs costs money too. The war on alternatives to tobacco costs less money, and earns tobacco companies billions.
This is a good example of what happens when the iron triangle makes logic its bitch.
On October 22 2012 02:27 travis wrote: Well the only other reason I could accept as being the primary reason is that there is too much money to be made from the war on drugs. Thanks for mocking me by the way, it's a mature way of refuting someone else's opinion.
I match my maturity to the intellectual depth of the comments to which I am replying. I find it helps people with very shallow minds understand what I say better.
That's really arrogant.
Consider this: The war on drugs costs money too.
So does the salary that pays congressmen. Yes, the war on drugs costs tax payer dollars. But that money goes somewhere - it goes to people/organizations that are invested in the war on drugs.
The war on alternatives to tobacco costs less money, and earns tobacco companies billions.
This is a good example of what happens when the iron triangle makes logic its bitch.
At this point I am not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing.
On October 22 2012 02:09 Xiphos wrote: Whoever saying that Marijuanna isn't addictive is totally hypocritical. Same applies to those implying that it have no side effects.
Addictive? Have you ever seen a Cannabis user act like a crack head? I sure haven't, and never will.
I smoke/eat cannabis for pain relief instead of taking liver/kidney killing medication. In fact i haven't ate/smoked any in over 2 months and never had any urges like a "addicted" person would. I only smoke/eat Cannabis when i have extreme pain, and it works wonders. Where's this addiction you speak of? Have a credible source of your claims?
Side effects? Sure, i might eat my entire stash of Cheez-its maybe and laugh my ass off at Bill Cosby Himself for the 1000th time. Yeah i guess those are pretty horrible side effects. Again, source of your claims? The good will outweigh the bad by a pretty big margin i would assume regardless.
The only people that would even come close to being "addicted" is kids. But even then half of them do it to fit in or look cool and have no clue of the medicinal benefits of Cannabis or the actual enjoyment of the plant really is about. Just a thought.
You seem highly mis-informed about Cannabis. You should read into it a bit honestly, very interesting stuff.
Anyways, Marijuana should be legal, just like it used to be. Too many benefits from 1 plant to be made illegal in the first place. Hemp anyone? Huge Medicinal benefits? So many good things from this plant could turn a lot of our current problems around for everyone.
Saying one cannot become addicted to marijuana is very disingenuous. Just because a substance does not produce very strong physical manifestations of withdrawal does not make it non-addictive. Secondly when you say ridiculous things such as "only kids can become addicted to weed" it becomes very hard for anyone to take anything you say serious.
Legalize, I've always said that the marijuana being classified as an "illegal drug" is the biggest injustice ever imposed upon society. Meanwhile harmful products such as cigarettes are legal - it's absolutely bonkers how our world works.
On October 22 2012 02:09 Xiphos wrote: Whoever saying that Marijuanna isn't addictive is totally hypocritical. Same applies to those implying that it have no side effects.
Addictive? Have you ever seen a Cannabis user act like a crack head? I sure haven't, and never will.
I smoke/eat cannabis for pain relief instead of taking liver/kidney killing medication. In fact i haven't ate/smoked any in over 2 months and never had any urges like a "addicted" person would. I only smoke/eat Cannabis when i have extreme pain, and it works wonders. Where's this addiction you speak of? Have a credible source of your claims?
Side effects? Sure, i might eat my entire stash of Cheez-its maybe and laugh my ass off at Bill Cosby Himself for the 1000th time. Yeah i guess those are pretty horrible side effects. Again, source of your claims? The good will outweigh the bad by a pretty big margin i would assume regardless.
The only people that would even come close to being "addicted" is kids. But even then half of them do it to fit in or look cool and have no clue of the medicinal benefits of Cannabis or the actual enjoyment of the plant really is about. Just a thought.
You seem highly mis-informed about Cannabis. You should read into it a bit honestly, very interesting stuff.
Anyways, Marijuana should be legal, just like it used to be. Too many benefits from 1 plant to be made illegal in the first place. Hemp anyone? Huge Medicinal benefits? So many good things from this plant could turn a lot of our current problems around for everyone.
Saying one cannot become addicted to marijuana is very disingenuous. Just because a substance does not produce very strong physical manifestations of withdrawal does not make it non-addictive. Secondly when you say ridiculous things such as "only kids can become addicted to weed" it becomes very hard for anyone to take anything you say serious.
I said the only people that would even come close to being addicted is kids. Pretty different to how you worded what i said. The only thing ridiculous about it is how you changed what i said to begin with, but that's pretty obvious.
Simple knowledge about a plant is widely known and proven time and time again by multiple credible Universities and the like for years, even the government has multiple patents on marijuana and medicinal properties of it (with no side-effects or addiction).
I'm just speaking about my years of experience with the plant and my opinion on the matter. Not trying to have someone twist my words around to discredit me.
edit: find me a case of a person addicted to Cannabis, i've been waiting 30+ years for it.
I would like to suggest that people without personal experience of use to be more cautious about where they stand (more so if they express their opinion strongly), since they pretty much do not know exactly what they are talking about.
I fuss wit the light green, I fuss wit the drizzle hoe I puts five to the tail, I smokes till it is no mo I fuss wit this hotel, I gots towels to the do' I fuss wit' this freaky hoe that's down fo' the dicky flo'
As for addiction, to put it simply, the only way one gets addicted to marijuana is the exact same as one gets addicted to Starcraft; which therefore should be (??) criminalized/illegal too
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
On October 22 2012 03:23 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote: As for addiction, to put it simply, the only way one gets addicted to marijuana is the exact same as one gets addicted to Starcraft; which therefore should be (??) criminalized/illegal too
I don't think anyone is arguing that. I'm 100% for legalization of marijuana, I'm just annoyed by the fact of some people spreading false information in hopes of furthering that cause. Also starcraft addiction is not caused by a foreign substance introduced into your body so obviously it's going to be completely different.
They are several arguments in favor of Marijuana Legalization. The following are more than enough to convince me.
First of all, the health impacts are very questionable: it's not great for your health, yet many things that are not good for your health are legal like cigarettes, alcohol, or McDonalds. Compare Super Size Me where some guy almost died eating McDonalds for a month, to Super High Me where some guy smoked a lot pot for a month with marginal health impacts (slight decrease in lung capacity, slower thought process whilst high). As the OP states the long term impacts are also questionable.
Then, there is the issue of prohibition. The war on drugs (in general) has failed and a new approach has to be taken. Marijuana is a gateway drug because it forces you to go 'underground' to find some and decriminalization would prevent that. It's not much of a gateway drug though, I've never met a pot dealer who had anything else to sell but mushrooms. I certainly had to dig further to try chemical drugs and I've never even heard of someone taking any harder drugs. I don't think drug use rates are going to go down using the criminal offense approach so why continue? People will keep smoking, the underground market will always exist because it's so easy to grow even in large cities...Prohibition is causing more hard than good it seems. I have also only heard good things from places who have gone the decriminalization / legalization routes...
The final point is the issue of personal freedom which I do not need to elaborate on. It think that health related repercussions of Marijuana use, as well as the impact legalization would have on use is not so overwhelming as to deny individuals the personal freedom to enjoy a few bowls alone or with friends as you would a beer or Shisha or whatever you're into. It doesn't harm anyone and any argument that it does follow immediately from the fact that it is illegal.
I would vote for decriminalization rather than full-blown legalization, I'm just not sure if the American public overall is mature enough to use it responsibly. Don't get me wrong, I've smoked for years and know many users and most of them function perfectly fine. However you DO meet people that get addicted to strictly weed and have psychological problems caused by (usually already there but exacerbated by) chronic weed use (see what I did there).
Even with weed being strictly illegal, there's an amazing amount of potheads and regular users still.. I realize the number of users decreased in the Netherlands but this isn't the Netherlands!
Kinda dislike seeing this topic regularly show up about every other month. But you've provided yet another fantastic OP, AUFKLARUNG. Superb job.
I've always struggled with this issue. The libertarian in me says to decriminalize or legalize it for the same reasons we allow alcohol. But my moral side reminds me that I really don't want to live in a community where this is seen as acceptable. Decriminalization would not necessarily be preferred in my opinion because I wouldn't like the government having yet another thing to regulate, even if they ARE getting more taxes from it, because they'll be sure to find some other trash to spend it on instead.
I'd really prefer it if the states could vote on it individually and decide for themselves. In that case, I would vote to criminalize it because I don't want it as a part of the local community (i.e. county, city) I participate in. As part of a larger vote, such as on the level of the nation,... I would probably vote for decrim./legal. of marijuana. Let people harm themselves this way if they wish. Still, I would privately act against the industry, warn others of the dangers of using pot (let alone the dangers of smoking in general), recommend healthier and more wholesome extracurricular alternatives to cannabis, etc.
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Smoking anything at all will increase your chances of getting cancer.
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
I think its important to note that marijuana was first made illegal in the united states when, in 1937, Harry J Anslinger testified before congress that cannabis would "cause white women to seek relationships with Negros." So cannabis prohibition was founded on racism and continues to be one of its tools. Just about an equal number of blacks and whites smoke cannabis in the US and yet far, far more blacks are booked for possession each year. Its absurd and it has to stop.
As for the legalization debate, I think most rational people will come to the same conclusion. Prohibition causes more harm than the drug itself. Most arguments against legalization are of the obnoxious, anecdotal "It totally wrecked my friendz life breh," type. The point is a lazy shithead will be a lazy shithead with our without marijuana. Likewise, a motivated intelligent person will generally continue to be motivated and intelligent after using Cannabis.
People will inevitably bring up the recent IQ study as proof of marijuana's insidious harm to the human brain. I haven't looked into the study much tbh, but just for good measure people who's brains are still developing should probably steer clear of marijuana use until they're older. For those who will say that legal cannabis would mean easier access for young people, let me raise this question: is it easier for a 15 year old today to buy cannabis or alcohol? Its far easier to buy cannabis because drug dealers don't check ID. Also, as everyone already knows, Correlation != Causation.
The justice department's continued crackdown on medical marijuana is profoundly unjust. As a person who has benefited tremendously from the medicinal use of marijuana in the past, it makes me sick to my stomach to know that cancer patients, people suffering from MS, etc are being deprived by the government of their medicine. Obviously there are people who have a med card just because they want to smoke cannabis for recreational purposes, but honestly I don't really mind that so much. It does make the medical system look a tad silly though.
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
pot can harm us however in moderation its fine people who thinks its perfectly safe for your lungs.. i got news for you its not. ive smoked for well over 15 years (pot never cigs) and i cough up black shit daily but its a risk i knew i was taking. just like people who smoke cigs know it can harm them
On October 22 2012 04:28 TapetalKarma wrote: pot can harm us however in moderation its fine people who thinks its perfectly safe for your lungs.. i got news for you its not. ive smoked for well over 15 years (pot never cigs) and i cough up black shit daily but its a risk i knew i was taking. just like people who smoke cigs know it can harm them
You're certainly correct, smoking cannabis is -not- good for your lungs. However, the fact that you're coughing up black is, in a way, a good thing. Cigarette smokers will rarely cough up the tar that fills their lungs, whereas the broncho dilation of THC causes marijuana smokers' lungs to cleanse themselves more readily. That is my understanding at least.
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
I never said that, i said show me where weed alone gives u lung cancer. Because no, it never has. Google it. I tried googling lung cancer from cannabis alone, nothing.
Usually, when someone (you) spews un sourced rhetoric, and gets called on it (By me) You are the one who is suppose to link a source. Not asking me to link a source to something, refuting what you neglect to source to begin with.
TL.net....... it's a viscous circle....Sigh, just type this into google "Mairjuana linked to lung cancer"
From result #1
In 2006, many of us in medicine were shocked when a review of research to date did not show an increase in lung cancer related to marijuana use. There was even a suggestion that marijuana had a protective effect against lung cancer.
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
I never said that, i said show me where weed alone gives u lung cancer. Because no, it never has. Google it. I tried googling lung cancer from cannabis alone, nothing.
You're being deliberately vague. No one is saying using marijuana in responsible ways will cause cancer (vape or eating). Smoking any substance creates carcinogens which are linked to cancer. If I am mistaken and you are in fact claiming smoking marijuana has no link to cancer you are sorely mistaken.
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
Smoking any plant material (well basically anything) is bad for your lungs and increases your lung cancer risk. Period. Weed is just far less dangerous than tobacco or rather industrial cigarettes with all their additives.
IMO: Legalize. Educate! Use the money saved (prosecution) and earned through taxes. ... Profit.
On October 22 2012 03:23 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote: As for addiction, to put it simply, the only way one gets addicted to marijuana is the exact same as one gets addicted to Starcraft; which therefore should be (??) criminalized/illegal too
There is a different level of addiction.
Addiction is simply getting hooked on anything that is not absolutely mandatory for survival. That means excessive calorie in take in food, logging on the internet, doing anything that is not related to breathing, eating the right amount.
Yeah if you can't live without starcraft, then you are addicted to it. But some addictions are more harmful than others. Marijuana have withdrawal effect, albeit pale in comparison to harder drugs, it is still much more than what StarCraft have to offer.
The withdrawals are that you will be losing sleep because of paranoia, your brain neurons won't run as smoothly anymore therefore you will feel more tired than usual. You will get involuntary highs at time so your memory will get screwed over. You will eat more than you are suppose to do due to munchies. So when you get off from it, your stomach will not respond to appettite as much and mess up your calorie-intake routines. And most importantly, you won't be thinking as lucid as before.
Those are facts that will be detrimental to one's health after high daily intake of the substance and will take as much as one year so that your brain and body function correctly.
So guys, don't fucking abuse it. Don't do it regularly and don't pull out your statistics from pre 2000 studies as weed these days are much more dense than before, they have labs to genetically change this shit.
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
I never said that, i said show me where weed alone gives u lung cancer. Because no, it never has. Google it. I tried googling lung cancer from cannabis alone, nothing.
You're being deliberately vague. No one is saying using marijuana in responsible ways will cause cancer (vape or eating). Smoking any substance creates carcinogens which are linked to cancer. If I am mistaken and you are in fact claiming smoking marijuana has no link to cancer you are sorely mistaken.
No I'm not, I did just update my OP. But once again, I'm saying. Marijuana-cancer. Hard science. Nothing with "May/Might/Could" in the title please. Marijuana-lung cancer. Ok someone else's turn, i'll check back in later.
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
I never said that, i said show me where weed alone gives u lung cancer. Because no, it never has. Google it. I tried googling lung cancer from cannabis alone, nothing.
You're being deliberately vague. No one is saying using marijuana in responsible ways will cause cancer (vape or eating). Smoking any substance creates carcinogens which are linked to cancer. If I am mistaken and you are in fact claiming smoking marijuana has no link to cancer you are sorely mistaken.
No I'm not, I did just update my OP. But once again, I'm saying. Marijuana-cancer. Hard science. Nothing with "May/Might/Could" in the title please. Marijuana-lung cancer. Ok someone else's turn, i'll check back in later.
I read through this article from pubmed last time this was brought up, you should too because you're completely incorrect if in fact you are saying smoking marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Which of course you REFUSE to clarify.
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
Smoking any plant material (well basically anything) is bad for your lungs and increases your lung cancer risk. Period. Weed is just far less dangerous than tobacco or rather industrial cigarettes with all their additives.
IMO: Legalize. Educate! Use the money saved (prosecution) and earned through taxes. ... Profit.
You can cut the smoke by vaporizing, baking, or extracting the THC into a pill! I just hope people actually know about this...
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
I never said that, i said show me where weed alone gives u lung cancer. Because no, it never has. Google it. I tried googling lung cancer from cannabis alone, nothing.
You're being deliberately vague. No one is saying using marijuana in responsible ways will cause cancer (vape or eating). Smoking any substance creates carcinogens which are linked to cancer. If I am mistaken and you are in fact claiming smoking marijuana has no link to cancer you are sorely mistaken.
No I'm not, I did just update my OP. But once again, I'm saying. Marijuana-cancer. Hard science. Nothing with "May/Might/Could" in the title please. Marijuana-lung cancer. Ok someone else's turn, i'll check back in later.
I read through this article from pubmed last time this was brought up, you should too because you're completely incorrect if in fact you are saying smoking marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Which of course you REFUSE to clarify.
You are aware, that the term "Increased Risk" is not "Cause Of" Right? This isn't shit I don't know. Now please, Lung cancer, caused by marijuana only. Show me
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
I never said that, i said show me where weed alone gives u lung cancer. Because no, it never has. Google it. I tried googling lung cancer from cannabis alone, nothing.
You're being deliberately vague. No one is saying using marijuana in responsible ways will cause cancer (vape or eating). Smoking any substance creates carcinogens which are linked to cancer. If I am mistaken and you are in fact claiming smoking marijuana has no link to cancer you are sorely mistaken.
No I'm not, I did just update my OP. But once again, I'm saying. Marijuana-cancer. Hard science. Nothing with "May/Might/Could" in the title please. Marijuana-lung cancer. Ok someone else's turn, i'll check back in later.
I read through this article from pubmed last time this was brought up, you should too because you're completely incorrect if in fact you are saying smoking marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Which of course you REFUSE to clarify.
You are aware, that the term "Increased Risk" is not "Cause Of" Right? This isn't shit I don't know. Now please, Lung cancer, caused by marijuana only. Show me
My mind is literally blown by your ignorance. Increased risk of what? Not causing cancer? No, increased risk OF CAUSING CANCER.
Nice sample size in that study bro. Also the test subjects were not said to have only used cannabis. What's your response to the fact that THC is considered a neuro-protective antioxidant?
And I love your statement "Anybody who knows some potheads..." the exact type of absurd anecdotal evidence I mentioned in my previous post. How about Obama? Richard Branson? Carl Sagan? Steven King? Bloomberg? Sorkin? Turner? They sure are some dopey losers aren't they?
Not a strong counter argument, but still valid: What about the alcoholics? Which drugs are illegal again?
Also: Some more data on this study would be nice. Which other drugs were the users involved in e.g.? I bet you, it's not marijuana only vs never ever drugs, so meh I'm Flash-like unimpressed. Nearly every study out there is biased or incomplete.
The study might not be conlcusive or whatever... but anybody who knows people who have smoked a lot for a long time (and is not a pothead him/herself) could tell you the results of the study.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
I never said that, i said show me where weed alone gives u lung cancer. Because no, it never has. Google it. I tried googling lung cancer from cannabis alone, nothing.
You're being deliberately vague. No one is saying using marijuana in responsible ways will cause cancer (vape or eating). Smoking any substance creates carcinogens which are linked to cancer. If I am mistaken and you are in fact claiming smoking marijuana has no link to cancer you are sorely mistaken.
No I'm not, I did just update my OP. But once again, I'm saying. Marijuana-cancer. Hard science. Nothing with "May/Might/Could" in the title please. Marijuana-lung cancer. Ok someone else's turn, i'll check back in later.
I read through this article from pubmed last time this was brought up, you should too because you're completely incorrect if in fact you are saying smoking marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Which of course you REFUSE to clarify.
You are aware, that the term "Increased Risk" is not "Cause Of" Right? This isn't shit I don't know. Now please, Lung cancer, caused by marijuana only. Show me
My mind is literally blown by your ignorance. Increased risk of what? Not causing cancer? No, increased risk OF CAUSING CANCER.
Walking across the street, increases your risk of being hit by a car. Does that mean the act of walking across the street killed you? Or the car it's self? Does the car not exist if you don't walk across the street?
That is about the most laymen way for me to explain this to you. If you want to read the journal, in a way that suits you by interpreting it in your favour. Then by all means. But me, when I read something, I usually take the words for their literal meaning.
We should keep cannabis illegal so criminals like the guy in this video don't have a chance to use this insidious drug. And as an added benefit it will keep white women from listening to that satanic Jazz music and seeking relationships with blacks and latinos! Marihuana truly is the devil's own weed, I tell ya!
These studies are highly entertaining. It's true of course,but every time someone brings it up in a argument it just makes me laugh. Monitoring people that heavily abuse marijuana over a time span of 15-33 years and the ONLY significant thing they detected is memory loss and learning capacity.Most of these monitored people started as kids as well. Newsflash,you abuse any kind of substance when you're a adolescent,it's going to have severe effects. If you heavily abuse alcohol for that long you either won't own your liver anymore or be dead altogether. Than they slap on a big juicy headline "Marijuana causes brain damage" when the "brain damage" is entirely reversible with "casual" users and possible the same with heavy abusers of the drug. Also they fail to mention how often the subjects smoke pot in that time span.
On October 22 2012 03:25 FuzZyLogic wrote: [quote] Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
I never said that, i said show me where weed alone gives u lung cancer. Because no, it never has. Google it. I tried googling lung cancer from cannabis alone, nothing.
You're being deliberately vague. No one is saying using marijuana in responsible ways will cause cancer (vape or eating). Smoking any substance creates carcinogens which are linked to cancer. If I am mistaken and you are in fact claiming smoking marijuana has no link to cancer you are sorely mistaken.
No I'm not, I did just update my OP. But once again, I'm saying. Marijuana-cancer. Hard science. Nothing with "May/Might/Could" in the title please. Marijuana-lung cancer. Ok someone else's turn, i'll check back in later.
I read through this article from pubmed last time this was brought up, you should too because you're completely incorrect if in fact you are saying smoking marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Which of course you REFUSE to clarify.
You are aware, that the term "Increased Risk" is not "Cause Of" Right? This isn't shit I don't know. Now please, Lung cancer, caused by marijuana only. Show me
My mind is literally blown by your ignorance. Increased risk of what? Not causing cancer? No, increased risk OF CAUSING CANCER.
Walking across the street, increases your risk of being hit by a car. Does that mean the act of walking across the street killed you? Or the car it's self? Does the car not exist if you don't walk across the street?
Both? Walking across the street lead to you dying, but you wouldn't have died had the car not been there. If you don't cross the street the car's existence is irrelevant, since it only affects you if you cross the street.
On October 22 2012 05:13 BjoernK wrote: The study might not be conlcusive or whatever... but anybody who knows people who have smoked a lot for a long time (and is not a pothead him/herself) could tell you the results of the study.
Of course overuse has negative effects. I can even tell from personal experience. Maybe even occasional or regular use. So the fuck what!? My sister gets completely wasted from 2 glasses of wine, but nobody wouldn't deny her a gallon of Vodka in every shop basically everywhere but the UAE, etc...
Another personal experienced and proven fact: Marijuana "addiction" is a joke. There's a huge difference between mental and physical dependency. Alcohol and cigarette addiction is a physical one, MJ does NOT make you physically dependant. Like someone already said, it's like computer games or facebook...
Yeah in a perfect world we wouldn't need/have/take any substance, but that won't happen.
There are more benefits to legalise marijuana so I vote legalised. I mean if we can sell cigarettes and alcohol there is no reason to deny marujuana. Nowadays, many of our food product are probably more dangerous than marijuana anyway
On October 21 2012 17:31 travis wrote: The primary reason marijuana isn't legal is that it makes people think critically. This isn't a comment on whether or not marijuana is a positive thing just my opinion on why it's illegal. Marijuana teaches many people to be more open minded and more capable of following trains of thought that they would otherwise dismiss. Again, just my opinion.
Marijuana is surely unhealthy as you are putting smoke in your lungs. But this isn't a justification for it being illegal. It has no synthetic chemicals in it unlikely cigarettes and is definitely healthier.
I smoked marijuana for years and didn't have much trouble quitting. It is not physically addictive, and being psychologically addictive isn't really a point. Psychological addiction is the same as wanting something because you know you like it.
The 'medical use' section doesn't even contain a reason for keeping it illegal.
The entire war on drugs is bogus anyways it's about money and control not about doing anything good.
This.And the fact that is illegal is because Corps and Goverments have more income from being it illegal.That is the truth about it.Also at the addiction part...psycholagigal addiction is EVERYTHING you want-from coffee to tea and basically everything-its a stupid reason to keep marijuana illegal.
On October 22 2012 05:45 Raysalis wrote: There are more benefits to legalise marijuana so I vote legalised. I mean if we can sell cigarettes and alcohol there is no reason to deny marujuana. Nowadays, many of our food product are probably more dangerous than marijuana anyway
Exactly right. Even the DEA (or at least a DEA official) admitted it in 1988:
“In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.
[Francis Young - DEA Administrative Law Judge - 1988]”
I doubt I'll ever have any (certainly can't imagine it at this point in my life), but I think it should be legalized.
People who do the research on it and take an informed risk in becoming marijuana users I don't see a problem with. Of course, there'll still be plenty of idiots who just do what their friends do, but that's an inevitable product of human nature and society.
Also, I wouldn't be very surprised if in a couple of decades time, after more and more places decriminalize/legalize weed and there is more research into it that they discover a bunch of negative long-term health effects that previously seemed ridiculous, like happened with smoking. You can already see the beginnings of that with the recent study that showed marijuana causing a drop in IQ.
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
I never said that, i said show me where weed alone gives u lung cancer. Because no, it never has. Google it. I tried googling lung cancer from cannabis alone, nothing.
Usually, when someone (you) spews un sourced rhetoric, and gets called on it (By me) You are the one who is suppose to link a source. Not asking me to link a source to something, refuting what you neglect to source to begin with.
TL.net....... it's a viscous circle....Sigh, just type this into google "Mairjuana linked to lung cancer"
In 2006, many of us in medicine were shocked when a review of research to date did not show an increase in lung cancer related to marijuana use. There was even a suggestion that marijuana had a protective effect against lung cancer.
I stand corrected, thank you.. I would've assumed since it has carcinogens and from all the times coughing up black shit that it must cause some sort of cancer like cigs lol.. Sorry for being ignorant.
And as in every thread about the topic which keep popping up every couple of months (which is a good thing!): Watch "The Union". It's freely available. If it has been mentionend before, i'm not sorry, because it can't be mentionend enough and is a great source for anyone interested in the topic. If you are a hardcore enemy of marijuana legalisation, you should also watch it. Elsewise you might get embarassed in a debate.
On October 22 2012 05:11 Xiphos wrote: ^because those people either quit while not taking it regularly or still taking it regularly and became reliant by it.
Of everyone posting in this thread, you have got to be one of the most ignorant. I'm not going to bother disseminating anything you've posted, but unless you have something that isn't anecdotal or isn't pointless conjecture or uninformed opinions, you really should just be quiet.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth (or start typing) and remove all doubt.
On October 22 2012 03:25 FuzZyLogic wrote: [quote] Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
I never said that, i said show me where weed alone gives u lung cancer. Because no, it never has. Google it. I tried googling lung cancer from cannabis alone, nothing.
You're being deliberately vague. No one is saying using marijuana in responsible ways will cause cancer (vape or eating). Smoking any substance creates carcinogens which are linked to cancer. If I am mistaken and you are in fact claiming smoking marijuana has no link to cancer you are sorely mistaken.
No I'm not, I did just update my OP. But once again, I'm saying. Marijuana-cancer. Hard science. Nothing with "May/Might/Could" in the title please. Marijuana-lung cancer. Ok someone else's turn, i'll check back in later.
I read through this article from pubmed last time this was brought up, you should too because you're completely incorrect if in fact you are saying smoking marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Which of course you REFUSE to clarify.
You are aware, that the term "Increased Risk" is not "Cause Of" Right? This isn't shit I don't know. Now please, Lung cancer, caused by marijuana only. Show me
My mind is literally blown by your ignorance. Increased risk of what? Not causing cancer? No, increased risk OF CAUSING CANCER.
Walking across the street, increases your risk of being hit by a car. Does that mean the act of walking across the street killed you? Or the car it's self? Does the car not exist if you don't walk across the street?
That is about the most laymen way for me to explain this to you. If you want to read the journal, in a way that suits you by interpreting it in your favour. Then by all means. But me, when I read something, I usually take the words for their literal meaning.
Yes and no one has ever died of AIDS, they die from getting illnesses they wouldn't have otherwise gotten due to the HIV virus having weakened their immune system. Actually, they don't die from that, they die from their heart ceasing to beat as a result of such an illness. Actually wait a minute, they die from oxygen failing to get delivered to their brain cells due to their heart ceasing to beat. What constitutes "cause" is a difficult question to answer, but can we all agree that both AIDS and an increased risk of lung cancer are bad things?
Health issues? Ha! I eat that stuff. Much better high, with a body stone which lasts for hours. Gateway effect? I'm happy with my cannabis thanks. What kind of stupid concept is this?
On October 22 2012 05:11 Xiphos wrote: ^because those people either quit while not taking it regularly or still taking it regularly and became reliant by it.
Of everyone posting in this thread, you have got to be one of the most ignorant. I'm not going to bother disseminating anything you've posted, but unless you have something that isn't anecdotal or isn't pointless conjecture or uninformed opinions, you really should just be quiet.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth (or start typing) and remove all doubt.
Hey man, if you don't want to disseminate anything I've posted, don't bother posting anything. Because you are being null in your attempt. And talking about irony on the last sentence, sheesh.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
I never said that, i said show me where weed alone gives u lung cancer. Because no, it never has. Google it. I tried googling lung cancer from cannabis alone, nothing.
You're being deliberately vague. No one is saying using marijuana in responsible ways will cause cancer (vape or eating). Smoking any substance creates carcinogens which are linked to cancer. If I am mistaken and you are in fact claiming smoking marijuana has no link to cancer you are sorely mistaken.
No I'm not, I did just update my OP. But once again, I'm saying. Marijuana-cancer. Hard science. Nothing with "May/Might/Could" in the title please. Marijuana-lung cancer. Ok someone else's turn, i'll check back in later.
I read through this article from pubmed last time this was brought up, you should too because you're completely incorrect if in fact you are saying smoking marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Which of course you REFUSE to clarify.
You are aware, that the term "Increased Risk" is not "Cause Of" Right? This isn't shit I don't know. Now please, Lung cancer, caused by marijuana only. Show me
My mind is literally blown by your ignorance. Increased risk of what? Not causing cancer? No, increased risk OF CAUSING CANCER.
Walking across the street, increases your risk of being hit by a car. Does that mean the act of walking across the street killed you? Or the car it's self? Does the car not exist if you don't walk across the street?
That is about the most laymen way for me to explain this to you. If you want to read the journal, in a way that suits you by interpreting it in your favour. Then by all means. But me, when I read something, I usually take the words for their literal meaning.
Yes and no one has ever died of AIDS, they die from getting illnesses they wouldn't have otherwise gotten due to the HIV virus having weakened their immune system. Actually, they don't die from that, they die from their heart ceasing to beat as a result of such an illness. Actually wait a minute, they die from oxygen failing to get delivered to their brain cells due to their heart ceasing to beat. What constitutes "cause" is a difficult question to answer, but can we all agree that both AIDS and an increased risk of lung cancer are bad things?
Well, cars need gas to run, it's not like McDonalds gives a shit about your health anyway, right? I mean, if you can paint your walls white, why the fuck should my post have to make any sense or have anything to do with what is being discussed?
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Erm, burning something produces carcinogens, so yes smoking weed will increase the risk of throat / lung cancer. There's no evidence of a cancer link to THC / CBD etc as far as I'm aware of though so a vaporizer is fine.
On October 22 2012 02:09 Xiphos wrote: Whoever saying that Marijuanna isn't addictive is totally hypocritical. Same applies to those implying that it have no side effects.
Addictive? Have you ever seen a Cannabis user act like a crack head? I sure haven't, and never will.
What kind of argument is that? I've never seen many things, doesn't mean they won't happen. Maybe a marajuana user is addicted to crack too and is therefore 'acting like a crack head'. Also addiction doesn't imply acting like a low life, considering a massive amount of the middle classes are addicted to prescription medication, and a very large number of old folks too. Then there's the fact that caffeine addiction is very widespread, although isn't a problem obviously.
On October 22 2012 02:31 nBk wrote: I smoke/eat cannabis for pain relief instead of taking liver/kidney killing medication. In fact i haven't ate/smoked any in over 2 months and never had any urges like a "addicted" person would. I only smoke/eat Cannabis when i have extreme pain, and it works wonders. Where's this addiction you speak of? Have a credible source of your claims?
Read that and the sources, I'm not going to quote from wikipedia. Withdrawal symptoms are noticed in heavy users, although not everyone. Maybe you aren't a heavy user, or maybe you just don't understand what withdrawal means. It can simply mean having a bit of trouble sleeping, you don't have to have cravings, in fact cravings are not a symptom of cannabis withdrawal.
On October 22 2012 02:31 nBk wrote: Side effects? Sure, i might eat my entire stash of Cheez-its maybe and laugh my ass off at Bill Cosby Himself for the 1000th time. Yeah i guess those are pretty horrible side effects. Again, source of your claims? The good will outweigh the bad by a pretty big margin i would assume regardless.
The only people that would even come close to being "addicted" is kids. But even then half of them do it to fit in or look cool and have no clue of the medicinal benefits of Cannabis or the actual enjoyment of the plant really is about. Just a thought.
You seem highly mis-informed about Cannabis. You should read into it a bit honestly, very interesting stuff.
Anyways, Marijuana should be legal, just like it used to be. Too many benefits from 1 plant to be made illegal in the first place. Hemp anyone? Huge Medicinal benefits? So many good things from this plant could turn a lot of our current problems around for everyone.
I entirely agree it should be legal, and I'm a regular user myself. That doesn't excuse blatant misinformation people spread, all whilst claiming others are spreading it, its intolerable, your personal experiences do no reflect definite truth, scientific inquiry does and it disputes your claims. Marijuana certainly can be addictive, both physiologically and psychologically (as can anything enjoyable though). It is however not as addictive as caffeine and does not have major withdrawal symptoms associated with it, in fact caffeine probably also has stronger withdrawal symptoms.
The only major associated health concern is increased risk of psychological illness, specifically schizophrenia in heavy young users (under 16), there is a significant risk with that age group due to the brain not being fully developed. There is a mild risk in adults, however this risk is generally not that high (comparable to alcohol abuse). However recent studies are suggesting that the increased THC (or rather lack of CBD) content in some strains could see an increase in adults too, however this would be countered by legalization as standards could be set in place (similar to alcohol content restrictions).
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
In a idea world, you should ONLY be granted weed as a medical use. That means, the shops should be licensed to sell them at mass storage. So dealer will turn into pharmacists and be beneficial to the society. Now the price of each store are completely set by the owner themselves so there will be price competition.
But one should not just take it for recreational purpose, it should only served or prescribed to those in need. And the user should be punished for smoking it outdoor where there are high population density.
People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
I'm kind of at a lost for what exactly you are saying. Anyway I haven't really seen anyone with a decent argument against legalization in this thread. What I have seen in this thread though are a few people trying to further the cause of legalization through blatant misinformation, and that is why you are seeing a few people playing devils advocate. Legalization will not happen through making up bullshit about there being no harm to using marijuana. What will help our cause for legalization is looking at the scientific facts of the substance and better understanding where the risks come from.
So instead of saying "lol u so stupid marijuana doesn't hurt your lungs". You could say "smoking anything will cause damage but through vaporization and edibles you can alleviate the damage and safely consume marijuana".
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.
That's not a real argument. It's like banning water because people might fill their lungs with it.
Yes it is. Smoking 3-4 unfiltered cigarettes a day is also like smoking 20 or more filtered cigarettes.
Cannabis contains far more carcinogens than tobacco. I've smoked pot for over 10 years and I support legalization but please, don't try to blow smoke up my ass. It's cancerous.
Use a vaporizer ? Carcinogens no longer a problem.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
edit; I seriously doubt the smell of marijuana has anything to do with it's legal status, that's just weird.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Hey look, you don't know what you're talking about again! Assumptions and conjecture, that's all you have.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Hey look, you don't know what you're talking about again! Assumptions and conjecture, that's all you have.
At least, I'm stick to the topic. You are only using ad homineum for all of your argument. Way to not be a asshole man.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
grunching i live in argentina and marijuana use is still criminalized. There was an almost complete atempt to de-criminalize consumption a few months ago but the legislation (altough the bill was written and re-written in conjunction by many parties) was never treated.
edit: i clarify this because the wiki map is wrong
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
I'm kind of at a lost for what exactly you are saying. Anyway I haven't really seen anyone with a decent argument against legalization in this thread. What I have seen in this thread though are a few people trying to further the cause of legalization through blatant misinformation, and that is why you are seeing a few people playing devils advocate. Legalization will not happen through making up bullshit about there being no harm to using marijuana. What will help our cause for legalization is looking at the scientific facts of the substance and better understanding where the risks come from.
So instead of saying "lol u so stupid marijuana doesn't hurt your lungs". You could say "smoking anything will cause damage but through vaporization and edibles you can alleviate the damage and safely consume marijuana".
Thanks, that's the level we should debate on to be taken seriously. Let me put it like this: "We" know, we are right and can back it up. No need for exaggeration! The enemies of legalization are due to prestent something backing up their opinion. All their studies are useless and everything they say is propaganda. You don't see them speaking up their opinion because they are getting destroyed in every debate. Let's hope logic and sense will prevail in the end.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
You're so wrong it hurts. The American Psychiatric Association DSM4 manual specifically defines cannabis dependence. There ARE COUNTLESS documents which also claim the same. Hell in my personal experience as well as many other people I've had all kinds of symptoms linked to my cessation of very heavy use of cannabis. Just because your personal experience doesn't mimic reality proves nothing.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
You're so wrong it hurts. The American Psychiatric Association DMV4 manual specifically defines cannabis dependence. There ARE COUNTLESS documents which also claim the same. Hell in my personal experience as well as many other people I've had all kinds of symptoms linked to my cessation of very heavy use of cannabis. Just because your personal experience doesn't mimic reality proves nothing.
There is no physical dependencies, nor physical withdrawl symptoms
I should have worded that better, fixed now. The symptoms you are referring to are what exactly?
And I'm not really interested in what the American Psychiatric Association has to say. Anyone taking kickbacks and bribes from pharmaceutical companies doesn't rate very highly on my list of "Organizations to take seriously".
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
I'm kind of at a lost for what exactly you are saying. Anyway I haven't really seen anyone with a decent argument against legalization in this thread. What I have seen in this thread though are a few people trying to further the cause of legalization through blatant misinformation, and that is why you are seeing a few people playing devils advocate. Legalization will not happen through making up bullshit about there being no harm to using marijuana. What will help our cause for legalization is looking at the scientific facts of the substance and better understanding where the risks come from.
So instead of saying "lol u so stupid marijuana doesn't hurt your lungs". You could say "smoking anything will cause damage but through vaporization and edibles you can alleviate the damage and safely consume marijuana".
My bad mate, it was written abit fast, as i was watching SL3 finals. But i get your point, i shouldve written it in a mannered way.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
You're so wrong it hurts. The American Psychiatric Association DMV4 manual specifically defines cannabis dependence. There ARE COUNTLESS documents which also claim the same. Hell in my personal experience as well as many other people I've had all kinds of symptoms linked to my cessation of very heavy use of cannabis. Just because your personal experience doesn't mimic reality proves nothing.
There is no physical dependencies, nor physical withdrawl symptoms
I should have worded that better, fixed now. The symptoms you are referring to are what exactly?
It's kind of semantics to be honest, some will argue it isn't physical. Let me be clear also I'm not trying to say it's anywhere near the level of alcohol,opiates, or cocaine withdrawal because that would be stupid. The main symptoms that really bothered me and I would consider physical are the headaches, inability to sleep, and huge reduction in appetite. One could argue that most of this is mental but isn't. They are caused by chemical changes going on within your body as it adjusts.
And on the topic of mental addiction, it's obvious to anyone who takes a break after very heavy use.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
You're so wrong it hurts. The American Psychiatric Association DMV4 manual specifically defines cannabis dependence. There ARE COUNTLESS documents which also claim the same. Hell in my personal experience as well as many other people I've had all kinds of symptoms linked to my cessation of very heavy use of cannabis. Just because your personal experience doesn't mimic reality proves nothing.
There is no physical dependencies, nor physical withdrawl symptoms
I should have worded that better, fixed now. The symptoms you are referring to are what exactly?
And I'm not really interested in what the American Psychiatric Association has to say. Anyone taking kickbacks and bribes from pharmaceutical companies doesn't rate very highly on my list of "Organizations to take seriously".
Youre not willing to accept what they say because they disagree with your opinion. Of course our discussion is basically over now that you have shown you don't want to discuss facts but rather opinions.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
You're so wrong it hurts. The American Psychiatric Association DMV4 manual specifically defines cannabis dependence. There ARE COUNTLESS documents which also claim the same. Hell in my personal experience as well as many other people I've had all kinds of symptoms linked to my cessation of very heavy use of cannabis. Just because your personal experience doesn't mimic reality proves nothing.
There is no physical dependencies, nor physical withdrawl symptoms
I should have worded that better, fixed now. The symptoms you are referring to are what exactly?
It's kind of semantics to be honest, some will argue it isn't physical. Let me be clear also I'm not trying to say it's anywhere near the level of alcohol,opiates, or cocaine withdrawal because that would be stupid. The main symptoms that really bothered me and I would consider physical are the headaches, inability to sleep, and huge reduction in appetite. One could argue that most of this is mental but isn't. They are caused by chemical changes going on within your body as it adjusts.
And on the topic of mental addiction, it's obvious to anyone who takes a break after very heavy use.
I'll concede to you that yes, there are changes that go on after quitting marijuana consumption. Severity and scope of these effects would obviously vary from person to person, but to insinuate that these are a result of "marijuana addiction" or "dependence" is frankly absurd to me.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
You're so wrong it hurts. The American Psychiatric Association DMV4 manual specifically defines cannabis dependence. There ARE COUNTLESS documents which also claim the same. Hell in my personal experience as well as many other people I've had all kinds of symptoms linked to my cessation of very heavy use of cannabis. Just because your personal experience doesn't mimic reality proves nothing.
There is no physical dependencies, nor physical withdrawl symptoms
I should have worded that better, fixed now. The symptoms you are referring to are what exactly?
And I'm not really interested in what the American Psychiatric Association has to say. Anyone taking kickbacks and bribes from pharmaceutical companies doesn't rate very highly on my list of "Organizations to take seriously".
Youre not willing to accept what they say because they disagree with your opinion. Of course our discussion is basically over now that you have shown you don't want to discuss facts but rather opinions.
Do you honestly think that these non profit organizations claiming to be "independent in their viewpoints and actions" are getting approximately 30% of their financing from pharmaceutical companies as a charitable donation?
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
Could you please stop making shit posts for the sake of stirring the pot? Thanks.
On October 22 2012 07:54 Retgery wrote: This has probably been asked before, but would anyone mind elaborating on the difference between legalized and decriminalized?
Decriminalized: You still have to go to a dealer. You're just not prosecuted for consumption and possession.
Legalized: Being able to buy it in a shop/dispensary or grow it at home.
There's a huge difference! To put it simply: If you wanna fight organized crime and regulate it (keep it away from minors! dealers don't ask for id...) legalization is the only way.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote: [quote]
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
Could you please stop making shit posts for the sake of stirring the pot? Thanks.
Talk about being a hypocrisy here. You are the one who is in this whole conspiracy that Big Pharma is bribing people to post up spurious results of their testing.
Marijuana does have a negative side effects, deal with them.
I've smoked almost every day for about 10 years, with a few breaks for a few days to a couple months here and there. I am about 4 months into a clean period. For about 48 hours after I stopped, I was antsy and talkative. Since then, I've noticed no difference in appetite, sleep patterns, or general mood. My memory is no better or worse. I live with my girlfriend and she notices no changes either.
Its different for everyone, I realize. Just sayin.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
Because it's illegal and the law can destroy your life (criminal record, loss of drivers license) way more than the consumption.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
It's pretty easy to make the argument that junk food and obesity is a much more serious health concern than smoking/vaporizing/eating cannabis.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote: [quote]
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
Because it's illegal and the law can destroy your life (criminal record, loss of drivers license) way more than the consumption.
Do you think alcohol should be prohibited?
Well because I don't drink alcohol, so yes it should be prohibited because it doesn't affect me.
But I do smoke at one time at regular daily intervals. And somewhat is active in that field. But even though I do, I still think that it should remain illegal.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
It's pretty easy to make the argument that junk food and obesity is a much more serious health concern than smoking/vaporizing/eating cannabis.
But on the basal level, weeds's effect is stronger than junk food in terms of altering one's mind/actions.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
[quote]
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
Because it's illegal and the law can destroy your life (criminal record, loss of drivers license) way more than the consumption.
Do you think alcohol should be prohibited?
Well because I don't drink alcohol, so yes it should be prohibited because it doesn't affect me.
But I do smoke at one time at regular daily intervals. And somewhat is active in that field. But even though I do, I still think that it should remain illegal.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
It's pretty easy to make the argument that junk food and obesity is a much more serious health concern than smoking/vaporizing/eating cannabis.
But on the basal level, weeds's effect is stronger than junk food in terms of altering one's mind/actions.
Is that a reason to be against it? I would be much more frightened of things that directly kill people.
Of course you are entitled to like or dislike whatever you want, but from a policy standpoint, the legal status of weed is just silly. Our society is full to the brim with products that alter the mind/body, and outright destroy your health and kill you. Pot is relatively benign.
On October 22 2012 08:09 mynameisgreat11 wrote: My anecdote about withdrawals:
I've smoked almost every day for about 10 years, with a few breaks for a few days to a couple months here and there. I am about 4 months into a clean period. For about 48 hours after I stopped, I was antsy and talkative. Since then, I've noticed no difference in appetite, sleep patterns, or general mood. My memory is no better or worse. I live with my girlfriend and she notices no changes either.
Its different for everyone, I realize. Just sayin.
Just for the record, same here. Smoked my first joint at 15, then basically nothing for 2 years. At some point became a hardcore smoker for 10+ years. Then basically quit instantly. Guess what, it was not the weed to blame for personal problems. Who would have thought!?
Of course i still got cravings. But they are on the level of a craving for real good bacon cheese burger or good sex. Don't want to make a comparison, but weed "addiction" is a joke.
On October 22 2012 08:09 mynameisgreat11 wrote: My anecdote about withdrawals:
I've smoked almost every day for about 10 years, with a few breaks for a few days to a couple months here and there. I am about 4 months into a clean period. For about 48 hours after I stopped, I was antsy and talkative. Since then, I've noticed no difference in appetite, sleep patterns, or general mood. My memory is no better or worse. I live with my girlfriend and she notices no changes either.
Its different for everyone, I realize. Just sayin.
Just for the record, same here. Smoked my first joint at 15, then basically nothing for 2 years. At some point became a hardcore smoker for 10+ years. Then basically quit instantly. Guess what, it was not the weed to blame for personal problems. Who would have thought!?
Of course i still got cravings. But they are on the level of a craving for real good bacon cheese burger or good sex. Don't want to make a comparison, but weed "addiction" is a joke.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
Because it's illegal and the law can destroy your life (criminal record, loss of drivers license) way more than the consumption.
Do you think alcohol should be prohibited?
Well because I don't drink alcohol, so yes it should be prohibited because it doesn't affect me.
But I do smoke at one time at regular daily intervals. And somewhat is active in that field. But even though I do, I still think that it should remain illegal.
On October 22 2012 08:14 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:17 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
It's pretty easy to make the argument that junk food and obesity is a much more serious health concern than smoking/vaporizing/eating cannabis.
But on the basal level, weeds's effect is stronger than junk food in terms of altering one's mind/actions.
Is that a reason to be against it? I would be much more frightened of things that directly kill people.
Of course you are entitled to like or dislike whatever you want, but from a policy standpoint, the legal status of weed is just silly. Our society is full to the brim with products that alter the mind/body, and outright destroy your health and kill you. Pot is relatively benign.
I agree, I totally agree. But see it is the dangerous illegal mindset of me doing weed that prompted me in the first place. Weed have side effects, albeit smaller than other harder drugs but just enough to keep me honest. So w/o the thrill of doing something illegal, it takes the feel away from it and the next thing to do would be mushrooms but that's a whole different story.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
[quote]
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
Because it's illegal and the law can destroy your life (criminal record, loss of drivers license) way more than the consumption.
Do you think alcohol should be prohibited?
Well because I don't drink alcohol, so yes it should be prohibited because it doesn't affect me.
But I do smoke at one time at regular daily intervals. And somewhat is active in that field. But even though I do, I still think that it should remain illegal.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
It's pretty easy to make the argument that junk food and obesity is a much more serious health concern than smoking/vaporizing/eating cannabis.
But on the basal level, weeds's effect is stronger than junk food in terms of altering one's mind/actions.
I can't stop laughing. Please tell me this isn't your logic for why alcohol should be prohibited again. I'm going to be laughing all week.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
Because it's illegal and the law can destroy your life (criminal record, loss of drivers license) way more than the consumption.
Do you think alcohol should be prohibited?
Well because I don't drink alcohol, so yes it should be prohibited because it doesn't affect me.
But I do smoke at one time at regular daily intervals. And somewhat is active in that field. But even though I do, I still think that it should remain illegal.
On October 22 2012 08:14 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:17 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
It's pretty easy to make the argument that junk food and obesity is a much more serious health concern than smoking/vaporizing/eating cannabis.
But on the basal level, weeds's effect is stronger than junk food in terms of altering one's mind/actions.
I can't stop laughing. Please tell me this isn't your logic for why alcohol should be prohibited again. I'm going to be laughing all week.
Nah, by the combine death incident where people were drinking alcohol and then proceed to drive from the dawn of automobile actually exceed the amount of death in World War 2:
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
[quote]
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
Because it's illegal and the law can destroy your life (criminal record, loss of drivers license) way more than the consumption.
Do you think alcohol should be prohibited?
Well because I don't drink alcohol, so yes it should be prohibited because it doesn't affect me.
But I do smoke at one time at regular daily intervals. And somewhat is active in that field. But even though I do, I still think that it should remain illegal.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
It's pretty easy to make the argument that junk food and obesity is a much more serious health concern than smoking/vaporizing/eating cannabis.
But on the basal level, weeds's effect is stronger than junk food in terms of altering one's mind/actions.
Ok. I really respect your opinion and kinda admire you for your overall soberness. But then go ahead make a thread about the prohibition of alcohol. Check out the responses there and then come back.
I understand that the first thing that comes to mind are those kids failing at life because of hardcore smoking, but do you really think the weed is the only thing to blame? Bill Gates still managed to do something with his life (yep he was a toker). Ted Turner (CNN) still smokes afaik. As do A LOT of other successful people. Check the last thread or google.
As i said, there's more weed smokers around than you'd think and most of them are absolutely normal people. Just check the statistics: If all people who were caught on possession (as Bill Gates was) were of the type you seem to think of...
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
You're so wrong it hurts. The American Psychiatric Association DSM4 manual specifically defines cannabis dependence. There ARE COUNTLESS documents which also claim the same. Hell in my personal experience as well as many other people I've had all kinds of symptoms linked to my cessation of very heavy use of cannabis. Just because your personal experience doesn't mimic reality proves nothing.
Previous editions of the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. Was that classification accurate?
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
[quote]
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
Could you please stop making shit posts for the sake of stirring the pot? Thanks.
Talk about being a hypocrisy here. You are the one who is in this whole conspiracy that Big Pharma is bribing people to post up spurious results of their testing.
Marijuana does have a negative side effects, deal with them.
I fail to see how calling me a conspiracy theorist or being passive-aggressive is making a point in this discussion.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
Because it's illegal and the law can destroy your life (criminal record, loss of drivers license) way more than the consumption.
Do you think alcohol should be prohibited?
Well because I don't drink alcohol, so yes it should be prohibited because it doesn't affect me.
But I do smoke at one time at regular daily intervals. And somewhat is active in that field. But even though I do, I still think that it should remain illegal.
On October 22 2012 08:14 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:17 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
It's pretty easy to make the argument that junk food and obesity is a much more serious health concern than smoking/vaporizing/eating cannabis.
But on the basal level, weeds's effect is stronger than junk food in terms of altering one's mind/actions.
Ok. I really respect your opinion and kinda admire you for your overall soberness. But then go ahead make a thread about the prohibition of alcohol. Check out the responses there and then come back.
I understand that the first thing that comes to mind are those kids failing at life because of hardcore smoking, but do you really think the weed is the only thing to blame? Bill Gates still managed to do something with his life (yep he was a toker). Ted Turner (CNN) still smokes afaik. As do A LOT of other successful people. Check the last thread or google.
As i said, there's more weed smokers around than you'd think and most of them are absolutely normal people. Just check the statistics: If all people who were caught on possession (as Bill Gates was) were of the type you seem to think of...
The thing is that those people have it under control and not abuse it vehemently. The thing is that during high school, I've hung out with many stoners since I was one (well still is, to a certain extent).
There are 7 people that I personally known that smoked it at daily basis, like running out of 1 bag/day. And this is funny because I've actually wrote a similar PM to TL user PanN on weed.
Anyways, here is it:
" In my high school time, we got a whole bunch of group of people that use weed almost daily. Like the 7 of us would at least go through 4 grams a day during recess time. But then one day, we were talking about the weed and everyone was saying the advantage of the weed. And then someone said "Idk, sometime I find it pretty boring to get high and would want to be sober for a change of pace or something." So later on, people brought up their take on the disadvantage of the herb. By then the usual symptoms pops when not high is to feel extremely bored and life-less without it. But I proposed that all of us don't smoke for a whole month as an experiment.
Funny thing was that 4 of us decided to call it a quit of the substance after the time's expiration. And from those 4 (me actually being a part of it) felt actually better to be in our natural state because of the cleanse. I l kept in contact with the other 3, 2 of them struggled really much in school after quitting weed that one of them dropped out and picked up weed again. But the other two went all the way through to quit. A few weeks ago, I talked to them and they have told me that the first month was the hardest to quit it because of headaches but then as time went on, it took them over a year to finally clear any feeling of THC in their bodies like 100% off.
But the thing you have to know is that we were young, and the younger you are, the more power THC have over you because your brain's signal pathways haven't been fully aligned properly so by quitting, it messes your growth up.
So yeah, its not really a matter of statistics I have found as a secondary evidence but this is seeing first hand. "
Me and those 3 guys, passed our test and got into universities for our passion. Mine being computer science because I wan to recreate the excitement of BW devoid of legal action by Blizzard and their QQing. The other 3 got into University of Ontario Technology in electrical engineering, lazer technology, computer engineering. While the other 3 I've mentionned flunked out of their courses but one of them is lucky enough to have enough apprenticeship skills in electrician and got a job as a manager at his uncle's Car workshop. But the other 2 still have to take an extra school year in order to graduate (In Canada, you need at least 30 credit to graduate in which they have failed 5/4 of their courses respectively in grade 12). And one of them comes from a long line of drug dealing.
Like I think that one should definitely not start smoking pot at a juvenile age. If I didn't get out of the game sooner, I could find myself caught in that situation and even though we were 'bros' back in the days, my respect can't be helped but to lost for them.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
You're so wrong it hurts. The American Psychiatric Association DSM4 manual specifically defines cannabis dependence. There ARE COUNTLESS documents which also claim the same. Hell in my personal experience as well as many other people I've had all kinds of symptoms linked to my cessation of very heavy use of cannabis. Just because your personal experience doesn't mimic reality proves nothing.
Previous editions of the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. Was that classification accurate?
Don't know I'm not a psychiatrist. I'm sure it was taken out when deemed inaccurate. So what does this have to do with the modern edition? Are you saying the DSM isn't a valid source? Because millions of researchers and clinicians say you're wrong, but I'm sure you're way more intelligent and informed on this subject than them.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
You're so wrong it hurts. The American Psychiatric Association DSM4 manual specifically defines cannabis dependence. There ARE COUNTLESS documents which also claim the same. Hell in my personal experience as well as many other people I've had all kinds of symptoms linked to my cessation of very heavy use of cannabis. Just because your personal experience doesn't mimic reality proves nothing.
Previous editions of the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. Was that classification accurate?
Don't know I'm not a psychiatrist. I'm sure it was taken out when deemed inaccurate. So what does this have to do with the modern edition? Are you saying the DSM isn't a valid source? Because millions of researchers and clinicians say you're wrong, but I'm sure you're way more intelligent and informed on this subject than them.
Don't create a strawman by implying that my claim is something like "I'm more intelligent and informed than researchers/clinicians and the DSM is hogwash." My point is that such things are not infallible. "Cannabis Use Disorder" or whatever being listed in the DSM does not necessarily mean that Cannabis is more addicting than any other serotonin releasing activity. Of course the brain can become accustomed to increased levels of serotonin and cessation after heavy use will result in mild discomfort for some people, and some people will without a doubt abuse cannabis. However, if we made public policy decisions based on the select few idiots who will abuse stuff then life would be pretty boring, no? No more delicious yet unhealthy food, and no more cars because someone might just decide to drive too fast and kill somebody. And no more ESPORTS because some dude in a PC bang might die from exhaustion after playing too long. As Joe Rogan says, lets nerf the world.
Gambling and gaming addiction are also listed in the DSM. The fact that they're classified as psychological disorders in no way implies that it's a physically addictive substance. Go to any drug abuse program or rehab center and there are people in there addicted to weed, it can become a habit just like gaming, gambling, porn etc..
My personal view is one session per week maximum, similar to drinking.
Otherwise, even if there weren't ANY negative effects associated be it mental or physical, one would be wasting too much time.
For 5% - 11% of the population with an addictive personality however, it will turn into a daily habit and the question is, what do you do with these people?
On October 22 2012 09:38 EngrishTeacher wrote: Everything in moderation.
My personal view is one session per week maximum, similar to drinking.
Otherwise, even if there weren't ANY negative effects associated be it mental or physical, one would be wasting too much time.
For 5% - 11% of the population with an addictive personality however, it will turn into a daily habit and the question is, what do you do with these people?
Evidently you just deny that it can become an addiction.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
You're so wrong it hurts. The American Psychiatric Association DMV4 manual specifically defines cannabis dependence. There ARE COUNTLESS documents which also claim the same. Hell in my personal experience as well as many other people I've had all kinds of symptoms linked to my cessation of very heavy use of cannabis. Just because your personal experience doesn't mimic reality proves nothing.
There is no physical dependencies, nor physical withdrawl symptoms
I should have worded that better, fixed now. The symptoms you are referring to are what exactly?
It's kind of semantics to be honest, some will argue it isn't physical. Let me be clear also I'm not trying to say it's anywhere near the level of alcohol,opiates, or cocaine withdrawal because that would be stupid. The main symptoms that really bothered me and I would consider physical are the headaches, inability to sleep, and huge reduction in appetite. One could argue that most of this is mental but isn't. They are caused by chemical changes going on within your body as it adjusts.
And on the topic of mental addiction, it's obvious to anyone who takes a break after very heavy use.
smoked most everyday for over 3 years now, a few months ago i quit with my wife because we was going military. No physical or mental addiction. I did miss the party sure. I missed being high, but after the 3rd day i stopped thinking about it. I started thinking "its about that time to fire up a bowl" because that became a habbit instead of an addiction. there is a difference. from my personal experience and feelings. marijuana is a habit in your lifestyle, not an addiction to a chemical.
On October 21 2012 18:17 jimbob615 wrote: well from a society point of view, people who smoke weed are also the the laziest and most unproductive people. i'm not sure i'd want that legalised so everyone goes on welfare to get high every day.
From personal experience I can say that's not true, some of the best workers I know also smoke weed in their free time.
i believe you, but like anything in life, there will be a spread from one extreme to another.
i can counter by saying from my personal experience, the laziest people i've met, EVER, also smoke weed in their free time. a better way to look at it is, on average, is someone going to be slower, more dim-witted and lazier after smoking? on average, i think you will find the answer to this is yes. and is that something we want the masses to have open access to?
You will have people with experiences on all portions of the spectrum. As long as you don't get totally destroyed you can still function entirely normally when high. You can't really use the second sentence as an argument either. Alcohol is widely available and you don't see every drunk off their asses at work do you? Just a little self control.
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
You're so wrong it hurts. The American Psychiatric Association DMV4 manual specifically defines cannabis dependence. There ARE COUNTLESS documents which also claim the same. Hell in my personal experience as well as many other people I've had all kinds of symptoms linked to my cessation of very heavy use of cannabis. Just because your personal experience doesn't mimic reality proves nothing.
There is no physical dependencies, nor physical withdrawl symptoms
I should have worded that better, fixed now. The symptoms you are referring to are what exactly?
It's kind of semantics to be honest, some will argue it isn't physical. Let me be clear also I'm not trying to say it's anywhere near the level of alcohol,opiates, or cocaine withdrawal because that would be stupid. The main symptoms that really bothered me and I would consider physical are the headaches, inability to sleep, and huge reduction in appetite. One could argue that most of this is mental but isn't. They are caused by chemical changes going on within your body as it adjusts.
And on the topic of mental addiction, it's obvious to anyone who takes a break after very heavy use.
smoked most everyday for over 3 years now, a few months ago i quit with my wife because we was going military. No physical or mental addiction. I did miss the party sure. I missed being high, but after the 3rd day i stopped thinking about it. I started thinking "its about that time to fire up a bowl" because that became a habbit instead of an addiction. there is a difference. from my personal experience and feelings. marijuana is a habit in your lifestyle, not an addiction to a chemical.
I'm glad you had no issues but personal anecdotes don't really prove anything besides what happened to you. I on the other hand had a different experience as have other people.
On October 22 2012 09:38 EngrishTeacher wrote: Everything in moderation.
My personal view is one session per week maximum, similar to drinking.
Otherwise, even if there weren't ANY negative effects associated be it mental or physical, one would be wasting too much time.
For 5% - 11% of the population with an addictive personality however, it will turn into a daily habit and the question is, what do you do with these people?
Nothing, because being addicted to marijuana is about as concerning as being addicted to running?
Honestly why bother lol. Anyone who considers marijuana addiction qualities to be equal to chocolate is clueless in the most literal sense of the word. I don't understand why on tlnet we can't ever discuss marijuana side effects without certain people getting strangely defensive.
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
Could you please stop making shit posts for the sake of stirring the pot? Thanks.
Talk about being a hypocrisy here. You are the one who is in this whole conspiracy that Big Pharma is bribing people to post up spurious results of their testing.
Marijuana does have a negative side effects, deal with them.
I fail to see how calling me a conspiracy theorist or being passive-aggressive is making a point in this discussion.
On October 22 2012 09:38 EngrishTeacher wrote: Everything in moderation.
My personal view is one session per week maximum, similar to drinking.
Otherwise, even if there weren't ANY negative effects associated be it mental or physical, one would be wasting too much time.
For 5% - 11% of the population with an addictive personality however, it will turn into a daily habit and the question is, what do you do with these people?
Nothing, because being addicted to marijuana is about as concerning as being addicted to running?
Being addicted to marijuana is most definitely more concerning than being addicted to running.
I get crazy weed withdrawals, and I fucking hate it.
Most things are about money these days. If marijuana were legal people would be growing it more. So how can you compete with grassroots growers? There's no Wal-Mart answer to marijuana, no easily-constructed monopoly system. The people who are not dealers that would become dealers if it was legal to grow and sell would be far better off than they are now. Keeping it illegal is just another way to keep people down. And don't get me started about the pharmaceutical companies.
On October 22 2012 07:23 HackBenjamin wrote: [quote]
Because there is way too much misinformation being spewed. One piece of information that is irrefutable is that marijuana has ZERO addictive qualities. There is no physical dependencies, nor withdrawl symptoms.
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
Because it's illegal and the law can destroy your life (criminal record, loss of drivers license) way more than the consumption.
Do you think alcohol should be prohibited?
Well because I don't drink alcohol, so yes it should be prohibited because it doesn't affect me.
But I do smoke at one time at regular daily intervals. And somewhat is active in that field. But even though I do, I still think that it should remain illegal.
On October 22 2012 08:14 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:17 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
It's pretty easy to make the argument that junk food and obesity is a much more serious health concern than smoking/vaporizing/eating cannabis.
But on the basal level, weeds's effect is stronger than junk food in terms of altering one's mind/actions.
I can't stop laughing. Please tell me this isn't your logic for why alcohol should be prohibited again. I'm going to be laughing all week.
Nah, by the combine death incident where people were drinking alcohol and then proceed to drive from the dawn of automobile actually exceed the amount of death in World War 2:
Yeah...this is some serious matters that you find it funny dying. I bet you are not laughing now.
Because that's what you said in the first place, right? People dying is the reason why alcohol should be prohibited was what you said in the first place, right? I mean, I have the quote right there, but I just can't find where you said that.
The amount of deaths that have resulted from WW1, 2, the korean and vietnam war amount to about 110 million people. I actually read your source, which is funny because you exclude three wars. What's also funny is that the source you have given me doesn't actually state how many people have died from drunk driving. It just says someone said that.
When I look for total deaths, I get only statistics for a year. Weird that I can't find a total number. So, for a year, on average, it's about 10k deaths. 10k x 100 years is 1m dead. Seems to be less than 1% of the deaths from the wars your very source has given me. This number is actually probably less because of the amount of drunk driving instances have most likely gone up in the past few decades.
But I still find your first logic funny, that prohibition should come back around because it doesn't affect you. Nowhere, though, will you find me laughing about drunk driving.
(you know what's weird, as well? the number is dwindling for drunk driving related deaths per year.)
Keep toking on that joint for the rest of your life man.
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
Because it's illegal and the law can destroy your life (criminal record, loss of drivers license) way more than the consumption.
Do you think alcohol should be prohibited?
Well because I don't drink alcohol, so yes it should be prohibited because it doesn't affect me.
But I do smoke at one time at regular daily intervals. And somewhat is active in that field. But even though I do, I still think that it should remain illegal.
On October 22 2012 08:14 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:17 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
It's pretty easy to make the argument that junk food and obesity is a much more serious health concern than smoking/vaporizing/eating cannabis.
But on the basal level, weeds's effect is stronger than junk food in terms of altering one's mind/actions.
I can't stop laughing. Please tell me this isn't your logic for why alcohol should be prohibited again. I'm going to be laughing all week.
Nah, by the combine death incident where people were drinking alcohol and then proceed to drive from the dawn of automobile actually exceed the amount of death in World War 2:
Yeah...this is some serious matters that you find it funny dying. I bet you are not laughing now.
Because that's what you said in the first place, right? People dying is the reason why alcohol should be prohibited was what you said in the first place, right? I mean, I have the quote right there, but I just can't find where you said that.
The amount of deaths that have resulted from WW1, 2, the korean and vietnam war amount to about 110 million people. I actually read your source, which is funny because you exclude three wars. What's also funny is that the source you have given me doesn't actually state how many people have died from drunk driving. It just says someone said that.
When I look for total deaths, I get only statistics for a year. Weird that I can't find a total number. So, for a year, on average, it's about 10k deaths. 10k x 100 years is 1m dead. Seems to be less than 1% of the deaths from the wars your very source has given me. This number is actually probably less because of the amount of drunk driving instances have most likely gone up in the past few decades.
But I still find your first logic funny, that prohibition should come back around because it doesn't affect you. Nowhere, though, will you find me laughing about drunk driving.
(you know what's weird, as well? the number is dwindling for drunk driving related deaths per year.)
On October 22 2012 09:38 EngrishTeacher wrote: Everything in moderation.
My personal view is one session per week maximum, similar to drinking.
Otherwise, even if there weren't ANY negative effects associated be it mental or physical, one would be wasting too much time.
For 5% - 11% of the population with an addictive personality however, it will turn into a daily habit and the question is, what do you do with these people?
Nothing, because being addicted to marijuana is about as concerning as being addicted to running?
Being addicted to marijuana is most definitely more concerning than being addicted to running.
I get crazy weed withdrawals, and I fucking hate it.
That's the psychological dependency which can happen... for me it's very mild but for others could definitely be a bitch. All up to your genes I suppose.
On October 22 2012 07:27 HackBenjamin wrote: [quote]
I will, and I do it by my personal choice, not because of any kind of dependency. I prefer the vaporizer, but I'm not really picky.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
Because it's illegal and the law can destroy your life (criminal record, loss of drivers license) way more than the consumption.
Do you think alcohol should be prohibited?
Well because I don't drink alcohol, so yes it should be prohibited because it doesn't affect me.
But I do smoke at one time at regular daily intervals. And somewhat is active in that field. But even though I do, I still think that it should remain illegal.
On October 22 2012 08:14 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:17 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 06:44 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Legalization would hurt the distributors and growers of marijuana, but it would also reduce crime.
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
It's pretty easy to make the argument that junk food and obesity is a much more serious health concern than smoking/vaporizing/eating cannabis.
But on the basal level, weeds's effect is stronger than junk food in terms of altering one's mind/actions.
I can't stop laughing. Please tell me this isn't your logic for why alcohol should be prohibited again. I'm going to be laughing all week.
Nah, by the combine death incident where people were drinking alcohol and then proceed to drive from the dawn of automobile actually exceed the amount of death in World War 2:
Yeah...this is some serious matters that you find it funny dying. I bet you are not laughing now.
Because that's what you said in the first place, right? People dying is the reason why alcohol should be prohibited was what you said in the first place, right? I mean, I have the quote right there, but I just can't find where you said that.
The amount of deaths that have resulted from WW1, 2, the korean and vietnam war amount to about 110 million people. I actually read your source, which is funny because you exclude three wars. What's also funny is that the source you have given me doesn't actually state how many people have died from drunk driving. It just says someone said that.
When I look for total deaths, I get only statistics for a year. Weird that I can't find a total number. So, for a year, on average, it's about 10k deaths. 10k x 100 years is 1m dead. Seems to be less than 1% of the deaths from the wars your very source has given me. This number is actually probably less because of the amount of drunk driving instances have most likely gone up in the past few decades.
But I still find your first logic funny, that prohibition should come back around because it doesn't affect you. Nowhere, though, will you find me laughing about drunk driving.
(you know what's weird, as well? the number is dwindling for drunk driving related deaths per year.)
Right, way to support my arguments though.
I'm not supporting prohibition because of drunk driving deaths. There would still be drunk driving deaths, alcohol poisoning, and then with prohibition, gang related deaths. Have you heard about the Zetas in Mexico?
Also, if I were to support prohibition because of drunk driving related deaths, then I would also support the criminalization of obesity.
I LOL'd. Thank you for the grin on my face. Keep running on that hamster wheel.
Do you drink alcohol? You better don't or you are a hypocrite. There's more people around who smoke weed and lead a normal productive life than hopeless stoner kids you seem to have in mind, let me assure you. It's just they are not all in your face about it because of guess what!?
Haven't gotten drunk once in my lifetime....and what am I suppose to guess about?
Because it's illegal and the law can destroy your life (criminal record, loss of drivers license) way more than the consumption.
Do you think alcohol should be prohibited?
Well because I don't drink alcohol, so yes it should be prohibited because it doesn't affect me.
But I do smoke at one time at regular daily intervals. And somewhat is active in that field. But even though I do, I still think that it should remain illegal.
On October 22 2012 08:14 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:17 Xiphos wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:01 FeelReD wrote: People who throw out arguments like, ppl get fucked up lungs/ get addicted, / they get aggressive. please stfu and read up before u talk. its stupid to see. in generel , you wont get more addicted to weed, than u do with chocolate. There isnt anything addictive to weed, like there is to cigs. , and you can consume weed in so many ways, you wont believe it. and people overuse all sorts of stuff. alcohol, cigarettes, computer games ( ye. ive read lots of people who dies/get their kid killed cus of no intenstion to it, because of the parents gaming ) , hell. even candy? people get fat, isnt that their own problem? should we also illegalise candy because people dont know how to control it?.
No because candy and chocolate are less mind altering than weed.
You obviously have never had the courage to say "Okay I'm going to stop it forever." because you can't live with the thought of living life, Cannabis-less anymore. And that's addiction.
Beside addiction means any other substance that isn't mandatory for one's survival. In that sense, we are all addicted to the internet because we don't really need to survive whereas a certain amount of food, sleep, water, O2 gases the basic necessity of life.
Then there are different level of harm done by the addiction which the laws have settle a standard to its harm.
But the primary reason why weed isn't legal is because of its smell. Tobacco's smell is way less pungent and scatters more quickly while Alcohol don't exhume scent in the first place.
On October 22 2012 07:16 HackBenjamin wrote:
On October 22 2012 07:00 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
Legalization means to reduce the price from distributors.
I think that in Canada, it is somewhat already legalized to a certain extend. You can carry like 3 bags of weed and the most the cops will do to you is to confiscate it and leave it with a warning afterward for smoking in public. But however if you have more than a specific size, charges will be done.
You "think".
No, it is not legalized in any way in Canada. Most people don't give a shit if you smoke it, but there are some that do, and if they report you, or you are caught by the police, you run the risk of charges. Consequences vary from cop to cop, speaking from (a lot of) personal experience.
So I'm guessing that my neighborhood > yours.
You should really move out of it.
It's pretty easy to make the argument that junk food and obesity is a much more serious health concern than smoking/vaporizing/eating cannabis.
But on the basal level, weeds's effect is stronger than junk food in terms of altering one's mind/actions.
I can't stop laughing. Please tell me this isn't your logic for why alcohol should be prohibited again. I'm going to be laughing all week.
Nah, by the combine death incident where people were drinking alcohol and then proceed to drive from the dawn of automobile actually exceed the amount of death in World War 2:
Yeah...this is some serious matters that you find it funny dying. I bet you are not laughing now.
Because that's what you said in the first place, right? People dying is the reason why alcohol should be prohibited was what you said in the first place, right? I mean, I have the quote right there, but I just can't find where you said that.
The amount of deaths that have resulted from WW1, 2, the korean and vietnam war amount to about 110 million people. I actually read your source, which is funny because you exclude three wars. What's also funny is that the source you have given me doesn't actually state how many people have died from drunk driving. It just says someone said that.
When I look for total deaths, I get only statistics for a year. Weird that I can't find a total number. So, for a year, on average, it's about 10k deaths. 10k x 100 years is 1m dead. Seems to be less than 1% of the deaths from the wars your very source has given me. This number is actually probably less because of the amount of drunk driving instances have most likely gone up in the past few decades.
But I still find your first logic funny, that prohibition should come back around because it doesn't affect you. Nowhere, though, will you find me laughing about drunk driving.
(you know what's weird, as well? the number is dwindling for drunk driving related deaths per year.)
Right, way to support my arguments though.
I'm not supporting prohibition because of drunk driving deaths. There would still be drunk driving deaths, alcohol poisoning, and then with prohibition, gang related deaths. Have you heard about the Zetas in Mexico?
Also, if I were to support prohibition because of drunk driving related deaths, then I would also support the criminalization of obesity.
On October 21 2012 16:56 Voltaire wrote: Legalize.
There's a chance it could be voted legal in a few states in the US this November. Colorado and Washington, I believe.
Irrelevant because Federal law states that marijuana is illegal. Any state measure to legalize marijuana is simply a show of public opinion. At the end of the day it is still illegal, and the Federal government is well within their right to stage raids against dispensaries.
Anyways, I don't see why it is illegal to possess/use. We waste far too much money punishing petty criminals for stupid shit. As far as I'm concerned, legalize all drugs and let the abusers die out.
I disagree when you said the Federal government is well within their right. Only because they said so? The Fed's have no say over, they are just tyrants.
On October 21 2012 16:56 Voltaire wrote: Legalize.
There's a chance it could be voted legal in a few states in the US this November. Colorado and Washington, I believe.
Irrelevant because Federal law states that marijuana is illegal. Any state measure to legalize marijuana is simply a show of public opinion. At the end of the day it is still illegal, and the Federal government is well within their right to stage raids against dispensaries.
Anyways, I don't see why it is illegal to possess/use. We waste far too much money punishing petty criminals for stupid shit. As far as I'm concerned, legalize all drugs and let the abusers die out.
I disagree when you said the Federal government is well within their right. Only because they said so? The Fed's have no say over, they are just tyrants.
The federal government very well can go into any of the 17 states that have "legalized" marijuana. The reason they dont? It's a waste of money. Jury nullification. Basically, the jury knows it's illegal by federal laws but they choose to ignore it and say that the person being prosecuted is innocent. Convictions would be way too hard to get. They are instead focusing on trying to find the people that are using the stuff and trying to get large crime rings and such together. One of the courts (cant remember which) is also currently reviewing a case that would put marijuana in the same category as other prescription medicines. Meaning it's dangerous but legal to take if prescribed by a doctor.
As much as I don't care about whether or not marijuana is legalised, I am curious why it's such a big deal to people. There's pretty much a perpetual discussion on legalising weed on every internet forum with a reasonably large and active population. The amount of discussion just seems totally disproportionate to the size of the issue.
If there was ever an argument for marijuana being addictive, it would be that so many of the people who smoke it care about it so much, far above a rational level of concern.
Anyway, I'm not actually arguing that all marijuana users are addicted. I just find the level of concern for something so unimportant to be silly is all.
On October 22 2012 14:00 Swede wrote: As much as I don't care about whether or not marijuana is legalised, I am curious why it's such a big deal to people. There's pretty much a perpetual discussion on legalising weed on every internet forum with a reasonably large and active population. The amount of discussion just seems totally disproportionate to the size of the issue.
If there was ever an argument for marijuana being addictive, it would be that so many of the people who smoke it care about it so much, far above a rational level of concern.
Anyway, I'm not actually arguing that all marijuana users are addicted. I just find the level of concern for something so unimportant to be silly is all.
Just because it is unimportant to you, doesn't mean it is unimportant to everybody. It is important to the MS patient who can't legally obtain this safe, efficacious medicine in the vast majority of the world and instead must resort to physically destructive/addictive opiates for his constant neuropathic pain. It is important to the people in Mexico slaughtered every day by the cartels using guns from the US bought with drugs/drug money. Certain drug lords have even come out and praised American leaders for continuing to keep Cannabis illegal because it was such a large source of their wealth (who smokes such awful cannabis I'll never know). It is important to the disproportionate amount of blacks being put in jail for simple marijuana possession. It is important to anyone who would hope that modern medicine is willing to look at all possibilities for treating today's most challenging illnesses including cancer, autoimmune and inflammatory disorders across the board, neuropathic disorders such as MS, and even autism. It is important to the 10 year old child watching in horror as mommy and daddy are dragged away by armed SWAT teams in unlawful, violent DEA drug raids for cannabis alone. It is important to the college student who can't get a student loan because he was caught with a small amount of Cannabis. In summation, prohibition is nothing short of an injustice and public policy disaster. It costs us billions, ruins more lives than the drug itself, and perpetuates a childish public perception of the drug based on decades of reefer madness brainwashing.
On October 22 2012 14:00 Swede wrote: As much as I don't care about whether or not marijuana is legalised, I am curious why it's such a big deal to people. There's pretty much a perpetual discussion on legalising weed on every internet forum with a reasonably large and active population. The amount of discussion just seems totally disproportionate to the size of the issue.
If there was ever an argument for marijuana being addictive, it would be that so many of the people who smoke it care about it so much, far above a rational level of concern.
Anyway, I'm not actually arguing that all marijuana users are addicted. I just find the level of concern for something so unimportant to be silly is all.
making as much as 50% of the 20 year olds into criminals for no good reason is unimportant to you? well excuse us for caring...
My problem with this thread is that there is too much marijuana users here and not a lot of "clean" people, like just basing on the replies, maybe 90% are marijuana users and 5% are not, and the remaining 5% do not have a stand. The worst thing is that the arguments brought by marijuana users/supporters don't make sense at all. I would see the same argument for smokers who don't see the harm their smoke does to non smokers. When you are the cause of the problem, you seldom see it for what it really is.
I don't think Marijuana is addictive at all besides like someone said earlier the whole mental(i need to smoke it but you dont really actually need it) i smoke prolly once every couple weeks or something if im having a bad day to relax and feel better. Doesnt ever really bother me at all(even when i smoke it pretty often) besides the fact Weed smoke burns alooooooot worse than tobacco smoke
On October 22 2012 14:00 Swede wrote: As much as I don't care about whether or not marijuana is legalised, I am curious why it's such a big deal to people. There's pretty much a perpetual discussion on legalising weed on every internet forum with a reasonably large and active population. The amount of discussion just seems totally disproportionate to the size of the issue.
If there was ever an argument for marijuana being addictive, it would be that so many of the people who smoke it care about it so much, far above a rational level of concern.
Anyway, I'm not actually arguing that all marijuana users are addicted. I just find the level of concern for something so unimportant to be silly is all.
making as much as 50% of the 20 year olds into criminals for no good reason is unimportant to you? well excuse us for caring...
It's unimportant by comparison to other things since everybody has the choice to just not smoke weed. There's only so much sympathy you can grant to somebody who does it knowing what the consequences could be and then gets caught. Especially since it is by and large a drug of leisure (and typically a massive waste of time).
I feel some sympathy for those who use it for medical reasons, but I'm also aware that advocates for medical marijuana often exaggerate its usefulness over existing treatments. For example a poster just above has claimed that marijuana is an 'efficacious' medicine for the treatment of MS, in spite of the fact that there is very little research to verify this (unless said poster would like to provide some). I'm not denying that there may be some legitimate medicinal uses for marijuana (glaucoma is one illness which it is definitely useful for, and it's also useful for regaining appetite in certain situations), but people talk about it as if it's some miracle cure, even though there's almost zero conclusive evidence that it helps with anything. There's a lot of studies that conclude that 'marijuana may be useful for so and so', but that's not even close to the same thing.
Anyway, I'm not actually anti-marijuana despite how I may come across. I just think it's further down the list of things to worry about.
On October 22 2012 14:00 Swede wrote: As much as I don't care about whether or not marijuana is legalised, I am curious why it's such a big deal to people. There's pretty much a perpetual discussion on legalising weed on every internet forum with a reasonably large and active population. The amount of discussion just seems totally disproportionate to the size of the issue.
If there was ever an argument for marijuana being addictive, it would be that so many of the people who smoke it care about it so much, far above a rational level of concern.
Anyway, I'm not actually arguing that all marijuana users are addicted. I just find the level of concern for something so unimportant to be silly is all.
Just because it is unimportant to you, doesn't mean it is unimportant to everybody. It is important to the MS patient who can't legally obtain this safe, efficacious medicine in the vast majority of the world and instead must resort to physically destructive/addictive opiates for his constant neuropathic pain. It is important to the people in Mexico slaughtered every day by the cartels using guns from the US bought with drugs/drug money. Certain drug lords have even come out and praised American leaders for continuing to keep Cannabis illegal because it was such a large source of their wealth (who smokes such awful cannabis I'll never know). It is important to the disproportionate amount of blacks being put in jail for simple marijuana possession. It is important to anyone who would hope that modern medicine is willing to look at all possibilities for treating today's most challenging illnesses including cancer, autoimmune and inflammatory disorders across the board, neuropathic disorders such as MS, and even autism. It is important to the 10 year old child watching in horror as mommy and daddy are dragged away by armed SWAT teams in unlawful, violent DEA drug raids for cannabis alone. It is important to the college student who can't get a student loan because he was caught with a small amount of Cannabis. In summation, prohibition is nothing short of an injustice and public policy disaster. It costs us billions, ruins more lives than the drug itself, and perpetuates a childish public perception of the drug based on decades of reefer madness brainwashing.
Wow, this is a very good post. Totally agree with you.
I think his ("above poster's") point was, that it has almost zero conclusive evidence, because it's illegal. There is alot of potential for research which is on a hold, because of restricting policies.
But i'm from holland, so I don't care.
The only problem here is, that foreign (French, Belgium, German) people overrun our borders for it, which limits our use drastically. Did you know that in the Netherlands you have to go to municipality to get a certificate of birth, just to sign yourself up in the coffeeshop as a club. Nobody i know is willing to get this certificate (pay for it) and join one club (your not allowed to join another club)
So people around the borders buy it illegally again in the Netherlands.
Honestly I could not bring myself to read the whole thread before posting, so many conditioned people regurgitating what society has taught them. Zero critical thinking. Travis had a great paragraph concerning that on the first page.
I guess I'll try to provide some perspective. Why is Cannabis illegal in the first place? This is a great place to introduce critical thinking 101; the basics for those of you who had to endure a lot of school (school murders creative and critical thinking).
Cui bono? Who benefits? This is often all you need to ask yourself when analyzing anything in this society. Even the most naive of you must realize that society today is driven by profit. Concern for public health for example is indeed secondary to monetary gain.
So, is Cannabis illegal based on it's effects on the body? Of course not. It's illegal due to massive propaganda campaigns in the states many years ago. The main reason here was that hemp (an exceptional product with many potential applications) was a threat to many established industries. In America, money buys political power. These companies had money. See the connection? I mean when Cannabis was made illegal in USA there hadn't even been any research done on it's harmful effects. But a criminalisation fit the interests of capital holders who had an interest in seeing Cannabis banned.
Today it's a bit different but still coupled to the fact that profit trumps everything. The war on drugs creates business in America. A legalization carries with it no real profit. Sure you could try to tax it but you forget that it is a plant, put here by mother nature. Are you gonna put the royal seal on weedbags sold by the state or something? You will never be able to control it properly. Nor should you. Hard to keep this strictly about weed as the topic is deeply connected to our society in general and how we view it.
There's really so much more to say but my plane is landing and i have to turn off my gadgets Will elaborate and keep arguing later tonight.
On October 22 2012 18:13 Bolty wrote: Today it's a bit different but still coupled to the fact that profit trumps everything. The war on drugs creates business in America. A legalization carries with it no real profit. Sure you could try to tax it but you forget that it is a plant, put here by mother nature. Are you gonna put the royal seal on weedbags sold by the state or something? You will never be able to control it properly. Nor should you. Hard to keep this strictly about weed as the topic is deeply connected to our society in general and how we view it.
There's really so much more to say but my plane is landing and i have to turn off my gadgets Will elaborate and keep arguing later tonight.
How come this doesn't form an issue what so ever for the sales of vegetables / fruit / grain / etc. Of course you can tax and regulate natural products... and of course you'll be able to control it properly. And we should!
On October 22 2012 18:13 Timmsh wrote: I think his ("above poster's") point was, that it has almost zero conclusive evidence, because it's illegal. There is alot of potential for research which is on a hold, because of restricting policies.
But i'm from holland, so I don't care.
The only problem here is, that foreign (French, Belgium, German) people overrun our borders for it, which limits our use drastically. Did you know that in the Netherlands you have to go to municipality to get a certificate of birth, just to sign yourself up in the coffeeshop as a club. Nobody i know is willing to get this certificate (pay for it) and join one club (your not allowed to join another club)
So people around the borders buy it illegally again in the Netherlands.
Especially being from Holland you should care.
This entire weed-pass plan is a disaster. The situation described above has only been applied to the border towns. And it's a complete joke. There never was a serious issue (please, tell me, what was the last time you saw stoners get rowdy). Mayors and the rest of the municipal politicians clearly state the new regulation is causing massive chaos and crime. Street selling took a huge leap, causing a lot more trouble than tourists ever managed. This is confirmed by every single city in which this was implemented. All 12 big cities in the Netherlands are doing all they can to fight this new regulation (to be introduced nationally on 1st of Jan.).
On October 22 2012 18:13 Bolty wrote: Today it's a bit different but still coupled to the fact that profit trumps everything. The war on drugs creates business in America. A legalization carries with it no real profit. Sure you could try to tax it but you forget that it is a plant, put here by mother nature. Are you gonna put the royal seal on weedbags sold by the state or something? You will never be able to control it properly. Nor should you. Hard to keep this strictly about weed as the topic is deeply connected to our society in general and how we view it.
There's really so much more to say but my plane is landing and i have to turn off my gadgets Will elaborate and keep arguing later tonight.
How come this doesn't form an issue what so ever for the sales of vegetables / fruit / grain / etc. Of course you can tax and regulate natural products... and of course you'll be able to control it properly. And we should!
I think the reason for this, is the amounts. Ever grown weed? In the Netherlands it's allowed to grow 3 full sized plants. (as you probably know) if you grow for 2 seasons (6 plants), you have enough weed to substain a family.
So it's uncontrollable in that way. (every person can grow 6 plants)
On October 22 2012 18:13 Bolty wrote: Today it's a bit different but still coupled to the fact that profit trumps everything. The war on drugs creates business in America. A legalization carries with it no real profit. Sure you could try to tax it but you forget that it is a plant, put here by mother nature. Are you gonna put the royal seal on weedbags sold by the state or something? You will never be able to control it properly. Nor should you. Hard to keep this strictly about weed as the topic is deeply connected to our society in general and how we view it.
There's really so much more to say but my plane is landing and i have to turn off my gadgets Will elaborate and keep arguing later tonight.
How come this doesn't form an issue what so ever for the sales of vegetables / fruit / grain / etc. Of course you can tax and regulate natural products... and of course you'll be able to control it properly. And we should!
I think the reason for this, is the amounts. Ever grown weed? In the Netherlands it's allowed to grow 3 full sized plants. (as you probably know) if you grow for 2 seasons (6 plants), you have enough weed to substain a family.
So it's uncontrollable in that way. (every person can grow 6 plants)
You can't grow 6 plants.
In addition, it would be illegal to have the "harvest" of 6 plants or in fact, even 3, especially keeping in mind that the maximum stock for a coffeeshop is 500g...
On October 22 2012 18:13 Bolty wrote: Today it's a bit different but still coupled to the fact that profit trumps everything. The war on drugs creates business in America. A legalization carries with it no real profit. Sure you could try to tax it but you forget that it is a plant, put here by mother nature. Are you gonna put the royal seal on weedbags sold by the state or something? You will never be able to control it properly. Nor should you. Hard to keep this strictly about weed as the topic is deeply connected to our society in general and how we view it.
There's really so much more to say but my plane is landing and i have to turn off my gadgets Will elaborate and keep arguing later tonight.
How come this doesn't form an issue what so ever for the sales of vegetables / fruit / grain / etc. Of course you can tax and regulate natural products... and of course you'll be able to control it properly. And we should!
This was a weird reply. I'm not sure what you are getting at? I guess you only meant to quote the second part there, because obviously you don't need cops to track down people who eat veggies,
But the second comparison is... quite incorrect as well. How are vegetables taxed? You mean you pay consumer tax on them when you buy them in the store? That is not the same thing my friend. I can grow my own veggies and no one can tax me. Can't do that with weed.
On October 22 2012 18:13 Bolty wrote: Today it's a bit different but still coupled to the fact that profit trumps everything. The war on drugs creates business in America. A legalization carries with it no real profit. Sure you could try to tax it but you forget that it is a plant, put here by mother nature. Are you gonna put the royal seal on weedbags sold by the state or something? You will never be able to control it properly. Nor should you. Hard to keep this strictly about weed as the topic is deeply connected to our society in general and how we view it.
There's really so much more to say but my plane is landing and i have to turn off my gadgets Will elaborate and keep arguing later tonight.
How come this doesn't form an issue what so ever for the sales of vegetables / fruit / grain / etc. Of course you can tax and regulate natural products... and of course you'll be able to control it properly. And we should!
On October 22 2012 18:13 Timmsh wrote: I think his ("above poster's") point was, that it has almost zero conclusive evidence, because it's illegal. There is alot of potential for research which is on a hold, because of restricting policies.
But i'm from holland, so I don't care.
The only problem here is, that foreign (French, Belgium, German) people overrun our borders for it, which limits our use drastically. Did you know that in the Netherlands you have to go to municipality to get a certificate of birth, just to sign yourself up in the coffeeshop as a club. Nobody i know is willing to get this certificate (pay for it) and join one club (your not allowed to join another club)
So people around the borders buy it illegally again in the Netherlands.
Especially being from Holland you should care.
This entire weed-pass plan is a disaster. The situation described above has only been applied to the border towns. And it's a complete joke. There never was a serious issue (please, tell me, what was the last time you saw stoners get rowdy). Mayors and the rest of the municipal politicians clearly state the new regulation is causing massive chaos and crime. Street selling took a huge leap, causing a lot more trouble than tourists ever managed. This is confirmed by every single city in which this was implemented. All 12 big cities in the Netherlands are doing all they can to fight this new regulation (to be introduced nationally on 1st of Jan.).
No don't get me wrong, i do care. I care alot about the new policy, it effects me (negatively) as well. The big problem in the matter is the fact that the EU is pushing the Netherlands to these measures. (weed pass) so it's not about the cities themselves, because they are forced to do this.
On October 22 2012 18:13 Bolty wrote: Today it's a bit different but still coupled to the fact that profit trumps everything. The war on drugs creates business in America. A legalization carries with it no real profit. Sure you could try to tax it but you forget that it is a plant, put here by mother nature. Are you gonna put the royal seal on weedbags sold by the state or something? You will never be able to control it properly. Nor should you. Hard to keep this strictly about weed as the topic is deeply connected to our society in general and how we view it.
There's really so much more to say but my plane is landing and i have to turn off my gadgets Will elaborate and keep arguing later tonight.
How come this doesn't form an issue what so ever for the sales of vegetables / fruit / grain / etc. Of course you can tax and regulate natural products... and of course you'll be able to control it properly. And we should!
I think the reason for this, is the amounts. Ever grown weed? In the Netherlands it's allowed to grow 3 full sized plants. (as you probably know) if you grow for 2 seasons (6 plants), you have enough weed to substain a family.
So it's uncontrollable in that way. (every person can grow 6 plants)
You can't grow 6 plants.
In addition, it would be illegal to have the "harvest" of 6 plants or in fact, even 3, especially keeping in mind that the maximum stock for a coffeeshop is 500g...
i said you can grow 3 plants (in most municipalities you can) for 2 seasons, (3 times 2 =...) harvesting is no problem, because that is legal as well.
edit: Ok, legal is a confusing subject in the Netherlands, so i delete that part. But let's say that "harvesting" isn't that illegal, compared to professional growing (with the use of lamps etc)
On October 22 2012 18:13 Bolty wrote: Today it's a bit different but still coupled to the fact that profit trumps everything. The war on drugs creates business in America. A legalization carries with it no real profit. Sure you could try to tax it but you forget that it is a plant, put here by mother nature. Are you gonna put the royal seal on weedbags sold by the state or something? You will never be able to control it properly. Nor should you. Hard to keep this strictly about weed as the topic is deeply connected to our society in general and how we view it.
There's really so much more to say but my plane is landing and i have to turn off my gadgets Will elaborate and keep arguing later tonight.
How come this doesn't form an issue what so ever for the sales of vegetables / fruit / grain / etc. Of course you can tax and regulate natural products... and of course you'll be able to control it properly. And we should!
This was a weird reply. I'm not sure what you are getting at? I guess you only meant to quote the second part there, because obviously you don't need cops to track down people who eat veggies,
But the second comparison is... quite incorrect as well. How are vegetables taxed? You mean you pay consumer tax on them when you buy them in the store? That is not the same thing my friend. I can grow my own veggies and no one can tax me. Can't do that with weed.
If it's legal, how does taxing anything you grow yourself make sense (same goes for hunting them growers down)? How is this necessary anyway? 99% of the people will buy it, not grow it. Hence 99% of consumption can be taxed through VAT.
However, following tobacco example (also a plant) you can exceed VAT with all sorts of fancy taxes and tariffs.
But maybe I completely misinterpret your statements.
On October 22 2012 18:37 Timmsh wrote: No don't get me wrong, i do care. I care alot about the new policy, it effects me (negatively) as well. The big problem in the matter is the fact that the EU is pushing the Netherlands to these measures. (weed pass) so it's not about the cities themselves, because they are forced to do this.
Totally. Fuck you France & USA (rather than EU). Open your eyes and see that almost no one uses drugs in the Netherlands, at least compared to your countries.
And yea, the cities are completely innocent, or even victims of national policy (damn Fed
An issue comes up for discussion and people begin to take moral standpoints based on the societal context of their upbringing. In other words, posters bring a bag full of 'must/must nots' and 'should/should nots' to the discussion and open that bag, fully believing that the contents of their bag are superior or more natural than the contents of other posters' bags. Debate ensues and we wind up with little critical discussion of either side of the issue.
What is missing is a critical discussion of the sociological aspect of drug use: how society and social norms determine how we contextualize drug use. Here is a good primer on that:
On October 22 2012 14:00 Swede wrote: As much as I don't care about whether or not marijuana is legalised, I am curious why it's such a big deal to people. There's pretty much a perpetual discussion on legalising weed on every internet forum with a reasonably large and active population. The amount of discussion just seems totally disproportionate to the size of the issue.
If there was ever an argument for marijuana being addictive, it would be that so many of the people who smoke it care about it so much, far above a rational level of concern.
Anyway, I'm not actually arguing that all marijuana users are addicted. I just find the level of concern for something so unimportant to be silly is all.
making as much as 50% of the 20 year olds into criminals for no good reason is unimportant to you? well excuse us for caring...
It's unimportant by comparison to other things since everybody has the choice to just not smoke weed. There's only so much sympathy you can grant to somebody who does it knowing what the consequences could be and then gets caught. Especially since it is by and large a drug of leisure (and typically a massive waste of time).
I feel some sympathy for those who use it for medical reasons, but I'm also aware that advocates for medical marijuana often exaggerate its usefulness over existing treatments. For example a poster just above has claimed that marijuana is an 'efficacious' medicine for the treatment of MS, in spite of the fact that there is very little research to verify this (unless said poster would like to provide some). I'm not denying that there may be some legitimate medicinal uses for marijuana (glaucoma is one illness which it is definitely useful for, and it's also useful for regaining appetite in certain situations), but people talk about it as if it's some miracle cure, even though there's almost zero conclusive evidence that it helps with anything. There's a lot of studies that conclude that 'marijuana may be useful for so and so', but that's not even close to the same thing.
Anyway, I'm not actually anti-marijuana despite how I may come across. I just think it's further down the list of things to worry about.
i should have the choice to smoke or not, and not threatened into what's socially acceptable at this time.
It's proven banning it doesn't do shit. So why in a society that labels itself as reasonable is it still illegal ? Don't say to protect users from themselves cuz that's just bullshit (hint tobacco).
On October 22 2012 20:10 Vei wrote: why do you refer to it as marijuana and not its scientific/accurate name of Cannabis / cannabis sativa
calling it Marijuana is like discussing prostitution but referring to it as brotheling or something
Yeah I think marijuana was a term coined by anti cannabis american politicians to make it sound ´scarier´ (not really the right word) in the ears of the population.
On October 22 2012 20:10 Vei wrote: why do you refer to it as marijuana and not its scientific/accurate name of Cannabis / cannabis sativa
calling it Marijuana is like discussing prostitution but referring to it as brotheling or something
This is really a small, even a very insignificant issue, about this topic given the amount of things that can be discussed. "Marijuana" has gone beyond its pejorative sense and is already widely accepted since what, the 60s.
On topic, the real problem with legalizing marijuana is that not everyone reacts the same way. I think decriminalization is a better option.
looking at the map, i feel very proud to have recently moved to holland
although from western canada which i feel like should be light blue.. at least vancouver anyways... i havent heard of anyone being arrested for smoking weed.. even in public.
I'm surprised by the poll results. I hope it reflects people's real opinion as I might have been party to the confusion, if there was some. I hope it's not too late for some definition of the terms (although I assume we all know this already):
Legalized - like cigarette and alcohol, they become available without any legal prohibitions. Legal interventions only come to deal with the results and not with the acquisition itself, that is, a person being drunk may be penalized after vandalizing or breaking a window.
Decriminalized - legal only in some specific cases, like for medical purposes, or, upon scientific investigation proving the baseline standard, (hypothetical in this case) a person is only allowed a certain amount of cannabis in his system for recreational purposes. Anything more results in an arrest.
On October 22 2012 18:13 Bolty wrote: Today it's a bit different but still coupled to the fact that profit trumps everything. The war on drugs creates business in America. A legalization carries with it no real profit. Sure you could try to tax it but you forget that it is a plant, put here by mother nature. Are you gonna put the royal seal on weedbags sold by the state or something? You will never be able to control it properly. Nor should you. Hard to keep this strictly about weed as the topic is deeply connected to our society in general and how we view it.
There's really so much more to say but my plane is landing and i have to turn off my gadgets Will elaborate and keep arguing later tonight.
How come this doesn't form an issue what so ever for the sales of vegetables / fruit / grain / etc. Of course you can tax and regulate natural products... and of course you'll be able to control it properly. And we should!
This was a weird reply. I'm not sure what you are getting at? I guess you only meant to quote the second part there, because obviously you don't need cops to track down people who eat veggies,
But the second comparison is... quite incorrect as well. How are vegetables taxed? You mean you pay consumer tax on them when you buy them in the store? That is not the same thing my friend. I can grow my own veggies and no one can tax me. Can't do that with weed.
If it's legal, how does taxing anything you grow yourself make sense (same goes for hunting them growers down)? How is this necessary anyway? 99% of the people will buy it, not grow it. Hence 99% of consumption can be taxed through VAT.
However, following tobacco example (also a plant) you can exceed VAT with all sorts of fancy taxes and tariffs.
But maybe I completely misinterpret your statements.
I guess we both misinterpret eachother, honestly I have no idea what you're getting at. You CAN tax anything, sure. But it's pointless until we have cameras literally everywhere (which probably isn't that far off).
And you obviously don't use drugs. I doubt you do anything not condoned by the government, no offense.
Anyway if you did you would know that 99% will not buy taxed weed, why would they? It will be more expensive. A lot of people probably will because it's practical, sure. But since this society produces poor people like it does, these people will still buy it illegally. And how are you gonna regulate that? Personally, I would buy taxed weed once to get the official looking bag and then fill said bag with unregulated herb. How dey gonna know bro?
There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
On October 21 2012 17:55 FXOUnstable wrote: Personally I was never a fan of marijuana, The people who tend to be "addicted" to it for lack of a better word and smoke heavily that I personally have ever known were always the type of people who couldn't keep a job and were not the smartest people, I figured this was a coincidence.
But then when I was at university I witnessed a straight A/HD student start smoking and within 6 months he didn't care about anything other than smoking it and even quit university and went on welfare. so it got me thinking, what is the tradeoff, having it illegal and people being hurt trying to get it that way, or having it legal and running the risk of those with addictive personalities get hooked on it, but that being said its just as much a risk that they get addicted to anything else.
That being said i'm sure there are many people who have the self control to do it moderately, so really why isn't it legalized yet when cigarettes and alcohol is pretty much the same thing.
i smoke nearly every day and started a software business, work 80+ hours a week, and am finding success. Your logic is incredibly experiential based on a few isolated cases.
why do you think highly educated university towns have a large percentage of smokers relative to other areas? then you go to places like tennessee, alabama, mississippi...and people are killing themselves slowly with alcohol and lard.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Everyone wants to legalize crack cocaine? That statement is about as believable as 80% of people who do crimes test for marijuana.
60 minutes ran a story on this, it focuses on my home state of Colorado. I've smoked my fair share of dispensary bud (my best friend and ex-roommate worked at one and had a card) and I have to say, it's awesome. There are literally no downsides to this movement.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
We have laws in place to prosecute people who commit those crimes. Sure, a person likely to engage in criminal behavior may also be inclined to use recreational drugs, but that is pretty irrelevant to the debate. To say there is a causal relationship between cannabis use and committing other crimes is beyond absurd.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
....I don't know what I can and can't say on this forum, heard the moderators can be quite nazi at times. But you sir are part of the invisible cancer in our society. Perpetuating this establishment, protecting it with your guns. I despise you.
Of course criminal youths turn to drugs, it's obvious. They feel like their lives are more or less forfeit, they have no place in society and everything is pointless. Why not do drugs in that situation? Everyone would. You too my disgusting little piggie.
You never once stopped to think why you arrest people do you? Why these young criminals exist, and why they turn to drugs? Society turned their backs on them! This system of money is like a game of musical chairs, there ain't enough for everybody and you have to be sneaky, fast or have sharp elbows to win. Those people who are born with a sense of empathy and enjoy seeing other people happy? You know, good people? They don't get rich because they realize that they have to step on their fellow men to do so. And what do you do? You hunt them, instead of helping them. Why? No profit in helping them. You are the invisible hand, as described by Adam Smith. It's your job to make sure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. And you don't even know it.
Do yourself a favor, stop being a cop. Maybe there's still time for you to do some actual good in this world.
Amazing OP. Showing both sides/ arguments. Love the amount of effort put into this ♥
Even if people on the "Illegalize" side condemn marijuana for the tiniest possibility of risks involved, we already have cigarettes and alcohol legal- so to keep marijuana as illegal, I think they'd have to be logically consistent and want to ban any drug that's more harmful than pot (including cigarettes and alcohol). They may very well want all of that to happen, but I'm of the opinion that adults should have the choice to put whatever they want in their own bodies as long as they:
1. Are properly educated about it beforehand (e.g. possible health risks, both short term and long term, side effects, chance of addiction, etc.) 2. Don't hurt anyone else in the process (and if they do, pay the consequences in a relatively similar way (e.g. drunk driving/ driving under the influence)
I personally have no interest in doing drugs, but I have no problem if someone else wants to do them on their own time, especially in the privacy of their own home (what they do there is none of my business, especially if it won't affect me).
On October 22 2012 14:00 Swede wrote: As much as I don't care about whether or not marijuana is legalised, I am curious why it's such a big deal to people. There's pretty much a perpetual discussion on legalising weed on every internet forum with a reasonably large and active population. The amount of discussion just seems totally disproportionate to the size of the issue.
If there was ever an argument for marijuana being addictive, it would be that so many of the people who smoke it care about it so much, far above a rational level of concern.
Anyway, I'm not actually arguing that all marijuana users are addicted. I just find the level of concern for something so unimportant to be silly is all.
making as much as 50% of the 20 year olds into criminals for no good reason is unimportant to you? well excuse us for caring...
It's unimportant by comparison to other things since everybody has the choice to just not smoke weed. There's only so much sympathy you can grant to somebody who does it knowing what the consequences could be and then gets caught. Especially since it is by and large a drug of leisure (and typically a massive waste of time).
I feel some sympathy for those who use it for medical reasons, but I'm also aware that advocates for medical marijuana often exaggerate its usefulness over existing treatments. For example a poster just above has claimed that marijuana is an 'efficacious' medicine for the treatment of MS, in spite of the fact that there is very little research to verify this (unless said poster would like to provide some). I'm not denying that there may be some legitimate medicinal uses for marijuana (glaucoma is one illness which it is definitely useful for, and it's also useful for regaining appetite in certain situations), but people talk about it as if it's some miracle cure, even though there's almost zero conclusive evidence that it helps with anything. There's a lot of studies that conclude that 'marijuana may be useful for so and so', but that's not even close to the same thing.
Anyway, I'm not actually anti-marijuana despite how I may come across. I just think it's further down the list of things to worry about.
There is a decent body of evidence suggesting cannabis is efficacious in relieving symptoms of neuropathic disorders like MS. Anecdotal evidence from patients is also all over the internet, likethe video i posted earlier and also Montel Williams. Unfortunately, the illegality of cannabis has been a barrier to research.
EDIT: I mentioned this earlier in the thread and I'll say it once more: modern medical science classifies THC as a potent neuroprotective antioxidant. Also, non-psychoactive CBD shows tremendous promise in the treatment of a vast array of maladies.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
Just because some criminals also smoke pot doesn't mean that the pot is the cause of the other- more dangerous- crimes. To think so is to forget that correlation does not imply causation. Drugs and violence are often found together, but that doesn't mean that "good" people are incapable of handling themselves in the presence of marijuana (which isn't nearly as dangerous as other drugs).
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Everyone wants to legalize crack cocaine? That statement is about as believable as 80% of people who do crimes test for marijuana.
I was talking about marijuana sir. This is a marijuana thread after all.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
We have laws in place to prosecute people who commit those crimes. Sure, a person likely to engage in criminal behavior may also be inclined to use recreational drugs, but that is pretty irrelevant to the debate. To say there is a causal relationship between cannabis use and committing other crimes is beyond absurd.
What causality do you need to establish? These are juveniles (KIDS) who take drugs. Are you defending that?
I see it as a medicine, and it should be illegal to abuse medicine...it's kind of a personal thing; I can't stand people who abuse legit medicine, it really hurts me because I take a medicine that people often abuse: Adderall. I legitimately need Adderall because my condition is so bad that without it, I wouldn't be able to focus long enough to finish typing this paragraph. It's downright debilitating. Therefore I hate people who abuse this and take it as a "study drug" when they obviously can get by without it. People who abuse marijuana are no different...it should only be for people with utterly debilitating pain or anxiety.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Everyone wants to legalize crack cocaine? That statement is about as believable as 80% of people who do crimes test for marijuana.
I was talking about marijuana sir. This is a marijuana thread after all.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Maybe you should read what you're responding to then? He says no one said anything about making crack legal. You replied "what do you mean no one? everyone here wants to legalize it."
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
Just because some criminals also smoke pot doesn't mean that the pot is the cause of the other- more dangerous- crimes. To think so is to forget that correlation does not imply causation. Drugs and violence are often found together, but that doesn't mean that "good" people are incapable of handling themselves in the presence of marijuana (which isn't nearly as dangerous as other drugs).
This correlation is not causation crap people say in the internet is absurd. What is there to think about kids, some as young as 10 years old, smoking weed and doing crime? Should we know conclude that coke does not contribute to the obesity of people who drink it everyday. How much evidence do you need to prove causation from correlation?
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
Just because some criminals also smoke pot doesn't mean that the pot is the cause of the other- more dangerous- crimes. To think so is to forget that correlation does not imply causation. Drugs and violence are often found together, but that doesn't mean that "good" people are incapable of handling themselves in the presence of marijuana (which isn't nearly as dangerous as other drugs).
This correlation is not causation crap people say in the internet is absurd. What is there to think about kids, some as young as 10 years old, smoking weed and doing crime? Should we know conclude that coke does not contribute to the obesity of people who drink it everyday. How much evidence do you need to prove causation from correlation?
Gosh, do you honestly believe smoking pot makes people more likely to do crime? If not wtf are you arguing? Are you confused about what correlation does not equal causation means?
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Everyone wants to legalize crack cocaine? That statement is about as believable as 80% of people who do crimes test for marijuana.
I was talking about marijuana sir. This is a marijuana thread after all.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Maybe you should read what you're responding to then? He says no one said anything about making crack legal. You replied "what do you mean no one? everyone here wants to legalize it."
Did you at any time attend school? The thread as the title clearly suggests is about marijuana. Therefore when I said everyone here wants to legalize "it", "it" means marijuana, proven by the fact that indeed majority voted to legalize marijuana in the polls. He just wanted to mislead the discussion. You both talk to each other since you seem to have the same purpose.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
Just because some criminals also smoke pot doesn't mean that the pot is the cause of the other- more dangerous- crimes. To think so is to forget that correlation does not imply causation. Drugs and violence are often found together, but that doesn't mean that "good" people are incapable of handling themselves in the presence of marijuana (which isn't nearly as dangerous as other drugs).
This correlation is not causation crap people say in the internet is absurd. What is there to think about kids, some as young as 10 years old, smoking weed and doing crime? Should we know conclude that coke does not contribute to the obesity of people who drink it everyday. How much evidence do you need to prove causation from correlation?
Gosh, do you honestly believe smoking pot makes people more likely to do crime? If not wtf are you arguing? Are you confused about what correlation does not equal causation means?
Correlation can equal causation, that is I think it's a cause to investigate but I don't think it's black or white either way. It neither always equals it or never equals it, but the potential to equal it is there. Buuuuut I think it's the other way around actually in this case. That is I don't think marijuana causes kids to commit crime, but that kids who are already committing crimes might get into marijuana "because why not".
But my main point about medicine still stands; that's my main problem and always will be. Again it's just my two cents and my theory is just a theory...oh well.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Everyone wants to legalize crack cocaine? That statement is about as believable as 80% of people who do crimes test for marijuana.
I was talking about marijuana sir. This is a marijuana thread after all.
On October 23 2012 01:16 neggro wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:13 Nizaris wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Maybe you should read what you're responding to then? He says no one said anything about making crack legal. You replied "what do you mean no one? everyone here wants to legalize it."
Did you at any time attend school? The thread as the title clearly suggests is about marijuana. Therefore when I said everyone here wants to legalize "it", "it" means marijuana, proven by the fact that indeed majority voted to legalize marijuana in the polls. He just wanted to mislead the discussion. You both talk to each other since you seem to have the same purpose.
You know sometimes when people try to insult me I get angry. But when it comes from someone who literally doesn't understand some of the terms he is using how can I be upset. It's really just ironic.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
Just because some criminals also smoke pot doesn't mean that the pot is the cause of the other- more dangerous- crimes. To think so is to forget that correlation does not imply causation. Drugs and violence are often found together, but that doesn't mean that "good" people are incapable of handling themselves in the presence of marijuana (which isn't nearly as dangerous as other drugs).
This correlation is not causation crap people say in the internet is absurd. What is there to think about kids, some as young as 10 years old, smoking weed and doing crime? Should we know conclude that coke does not contribute to the obesity of people who drink it everyday. How much evidence do you need to prove causation from correlation?
Gosh, do you honestly believe smoking pot makes people more likely to do crime? If not wtf are you arguing? Are you confused about what correlation does not equal causation means?
If 80% is not enough by personal experience and official record, what then? Should we test all children and make then smoke pot and see if there is any correlation bullshit to prove the point. Some of you need to be awakened to real life and stop dreaming that life is all the rainbows and unicorns you learn in your philosophy classes.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Everyone wants to legalize crack cocaine? That statement is about as believable as 80% of people who do crimes test for marijuana.
I was talking about marijuana sir. This is a marijuana thread after all.
On October 23 2012 01:16 neggro wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:13 Nizaris wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Maybe you should read what you're responding to then? He says no one said anything about making crack legal. You replied "what do you mean no one? everyone here wants to legalize it."
Did you at any time attend school? The thread as the title clearly suggests is about marijuana. Therefore when I said everyone here wants to legalize "it", "it" means marijuana, proven by the fact that indeed majority voted to legalize marijuana in the polls. He just wanted to mislead the discussion. You both talk to each other since you seem to have the same purpose.
You know sometimes when people try to insult me I get angry. But when it comes from someone who literally doesn't understand some of the terms he is using how can I be upset. It's really just ironic.
tMomiji above you just gave you a free lesson. Thank him.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Everyone wants to legalize crack cocaine? That statement is about as believable as 80% of people who do crimes test for marijuana.
I was talking about marijuana sir. This is a marijuana thread after all.
On October 23 2012 01:16 neggro wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:13 Nizaris wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Maybe you should read what you're responding to then? He says no one said anything about making crack legal. You replied "what do you mean no one? everyone here wants to legalize it."
Did you at any time attend school? The thread as the title clearly suggests is about marijuana. Therefore when I said everyone here wants to legalize "it", "it" means marijuana, proven by the fact that indeed majority voted to legalize marijuana in the polls. He just wanted to mislead the discussion. You both talk to each other since you seem to have the same purpose.
You know sometimes when people try to insult me I get angry. But when it comes from someone who literally doesn't understand some of the terms he is using how can I be upset. It's really just ironic.
technically i have a lot of faith in humanity, so i like to believe he's just trolling
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
Just because some criminals also smoke pot doesn't mean that the pot is the cause of the other- more dangerous- crimes. To think so is to forget that correlation does not imply causation. Drugs and violence are often found together, but that doesn't mean that "good" people are incapable of handling themselves in the presence of marijuana (which isn't nearly as dangerous as other drugs).
This correlation is not causation crap people say in the internet is absurd. What is there to think about kids, some as young as 10 years old, smoking weed and doing crime? Should we know conclude that coke does not contribute to the obesity of people who drink it everyday. How much evidence do you need to prove causation from correlation?
Gosh, do you honestly believe smoking pot makes people more likely to do crime? If not wtf are you arguing? Are you confused about what correlation does not equal causation means?
If 80% is not enough by personal experience and official record, what then? Should we test all children and make then smoke pot and see if there is any correlation bullshit to prove the point. Some of you need to be awakened to real life and stop dreaming that life is all the rainbows and unicorns you learn in your philosophy classes.
links, etc, where are these records? can you please explain why you think one would take kind of a 'downer' and go about doing crime? Or is it more an 'environment' issue, case in which legalising it would actually make sense?
Or are you just saying that 80% of kids arrested are arrested for consuming/possesion, hence 80% of kids arrested are drug-related crimes? lolo
Asking all these since we already established pot, crack etc are just words for you and you don't really seem to know what you're talking about
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Everyone wants to legalize crack cocaine? That statement is about as believable as 80% of people who do crimes test for marijuana.
I was talking about marijuana sir. This is a marijuana thread after all.
On October 23 2012 01:16 neggro wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:13 Nizaris wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Maybe you should read what you're responding to then? He says no one said anything about making crack legal. You replied "what do you mean no one? everyone here wants to legalize it."
Did you at any time attend school? The thread as the title clearly suggests is about marijuana. Therefore when I said everyone here wants to legalize "it", "it" means marijuana, proven by the fact that indeed majority voted to legalize marijuana in the polls. He just wanted to mislead the discussion. You both talk to each other since you seem to have the same purpose.
You know sometimes when people try to insult me I get angry. But when it comes from someone who literally doesn't understand some of the terms he is using how can I be upset. It's really just ironic.
tMomiji above you just gave you a free lesson. Thank him.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Everyone wants to legalize crack cocaine? That statement is about as believable as 80% of people who do crimes test for marijuana.
I was talking about marijuana sir. This is a marijuana thread after all.
On October 23 2012 01:16 neggro wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:13 Nizaris wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Maybe you should read what you're responding to then? He says no one said anything about making crack legal. You replied "what do you mean no one? everyone here wants to legalize it."
Did you at any time attend school? The thread as the title clearly suggests is about marijuana. Therefore when I said everyone here wants to legalize "it", "it" means marijuana, proven by the fact that indeed majority voted to legalize marijuana in the polls. He just wanted to mislead the discussion. You both talk to each other since you seem to have the same purpose.
You know sometimes when people try to insult me I get angry. But when it comes from someone who literally doesn't understand some of the terms he is using how can I be upset. It's really just ironic.
tMomiji above you just gave you a free lesson. Thank him.
Oh, my...it's just an opinion and a theory is all; you'll make me blush and then get all self-important when really I'm just trying to look at both sides of the issue without being biased; last time I got into a nasty fight when I discussed this, so...
Edit: That is, both sides of the criminal issue. If you want to talk about medicine I unfortunately am completely biased on that issue because like I said I can't stand the abuse of legal drugs...
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
....I don't know what I can and can't say on this forum, heard the moderators can be quite nazi at times. But you sir are part of the invisible cancer in our society. Perpetuating this establishment, protecting it with your guns. I despise you.
Of course criminal youths turn to drugs, it's obvious. They feel like their lives are more or less forfeit, they have no place in society and everything is pointless. Why not do drugs in that situation? Everyone would. You too my disgusting little piggie.
You never once stopped to think why you arrest people do you? Why these young criminals exist, and why they turn to drugs? Society turned their backs on them! This system of money is like a game of musical chairs, there ain't enough for everybody and you have to be sneaky, fast or have sharp elbows to win. Those people who are born with a sense of empathy and enjoy seeing other people happy? You know, good people? They don't get rich because they realize that they have to step on their fellow men to do so. And what do you do? You hunt them, instead of helping them. Why? No profit in helping them. You are the invisible hand, as described by Adam Smith. It's your job to make sure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. And you don't even know it.
Do yourself a favor, stop being a cop. Maybe there's still time for you to do some actual good in this world.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
We have laws in place to prosecute people who commit those crimes. Sure, a person likely to engage in criminal behavior may also be inclined to use recreational drugs, but that is pretty irrelevant to the debate. To say there is a causal relationship between cannabis use and committing other crimes is beyond absurd.
What causality do you need to establish? These are juveniles (KIDS) who take drugs. Are you defending that?
Don't turn my argument into something it's not. So-called juvenile usage is not likely to increase as the result of legalization, it will more likely go down as it has in the Netherlands and (I believe) California. You implied that cannabis causes young people to commit crimes which is a preposterous, irrational statement. Trying to take the "Oh, won't somebody think of the children!!" approach to this argument simply won't work. Drug dealers don't check ID, liquor store clerks do. As a police officer, can you genuinely say you see more harm caused by cannabis than alcohol?
And you're right, there is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. As I mentioned before, Harry J anslinger, William Randolph Hurst and others set off a massive propaganda campaign against "Marihuana" by claiming it "caused white women to seek relationships with negros" and made Mexican laborers go berserk. Racism and propaganda are the reasons cannabis was made illegal
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
Just because some criminals also smoke pot doesn't mean that the pot is the cause of the other- more dangerous- crimes. To think so is to forget that correlation does not imply causation. Drugs and violence are often found together, but that doesn't mean that "good" people are incapable of handling themselves in the presence of marijuana (which isn't nearly as dangerous as other drugs).
This correlation is not causation crap people say in the internet is absurd. What is there to think about kids, some as young as 10 years old, smoking weed and doing crime? Should we know conclude that coke does not contribute to the obesity of people who drink it everyday. How much evidence do you need to prove causation from correlation?
Gosh, do you honestly believe smoking pot makes people more likely to do crime? If not wtf are you arguing? Are you confused about what correlation does not equal causation means?
If 80% is not enough by personal experience and official record, what then? Should we test all children and make then smoke pot and see if there is any correlation bullshit to prove the point. Some of you need to be awakened to real life and stop dreaming that life is all the rainbows and unicorns you learn in your philosophy classes.
links, etc, where are these records? can you please explain why you think one would take kind of a 'downer' and go about doing crime? Or is it more an 'environment' issue, case in which legalising it would actually make sense?
Or are you just saying that 80% of kids arrested are arrested for consuming/possesion, hence 80% of kids arrested are drug-related crimes? lolo
Asking all these since we already established pot, crack etc are just words for you and you don't really seem to know what you're talking about
Go to your nearest police station and look it up. What? You want to be spoon fed now?
You and that other guy prove just how kids are reckless and have no idea how real life works. I respect your desire to smoke, but just don't get caught and don't escalate it by doing something more stupid. Tip: if you are being called by the police for possession, don't run or reach for your pocket. It's a "code red" (MUST do, not just CAN do) condition for the police to taser or even shoot you depending on the circumstance. You may refuse to accept to my previous posts but believe me, heed me on this one, for your own good.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
Just because some criminals also smoke pot doesn't mean that the pot is the cause of the other- more dangerous- crimes. To think so is to forget that correlation does not imply causation. Drugs and violence are often found together, but that doesn't mean that "good" people are incapable of handling themselves in the presence of marijuana (which isn't nearly as dangerous as other drugs).
This correlation is not causation crap people say in the internet is absurd. What is there to think about kids, some as young as 10 years old, smoking weed and doing crime? Should we know conclude that coke does not contribute to the obesity of people who drink it everyday. How much evidence do you need to prove causation from correlation?
Gosh, do you honestly believe smoking pot makes people more likely to do crime? If not wtf are you arguing? Are you confused about what correlation does not equal causation means?
If 80% is not enough by personal experience and official record, what then? Should we test all children and make then smoke pot and see if there is any correlation bullshit to prove the point. Some of you need to be awakened to real life and stop dreaming that life is all the rainbows and unicorns you learn in your philosophy classes.
even if its 80%, its still not reason to believe causation. especially with the situation we have with marijuana. a good way to explain this is to say that teenagers not having respect for authority is the cause of both marijuana use and other offenses, not that marijuana is what made them break the law. to assume that because if any random person trying marijuana is going to be more like to commit a crime because of the drug is too much.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
We have laws in place to prosecute people who commit those crimes. Sure, a person likely to engage in criminal behavior may also be inclined to use recreational drugs, but that is pretty irrelevant to the debate. To say there is a causal relationship between cannabis use and committing other crimes is beyond absurd.
In my experience people are less likely to commit crimes while directly under the influence of marijuana, do to the paranoia and general lethargy of the drug. I think there is a much stronger case for alcohol than almost any other drug (probably put together) for correlation with a crime of some sort.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Everyone wants to legalize crack cocaine? That statement is about as believable as 80% of people who do crimes test for marijuana.
I was talking about marijuana sir. This is a marijuana thread after all.
On October 23 2012 01:16 neggro wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:13 Nizaris wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Maybe you should read what you're responding to then? He says no one said anything about making crack legal. You replied "what do you mean no one? everyone here wants to legalize it."
Did you at any time attend school? The thread as the title clearly suggests is about marijuana. Therefore when I said everyone here wants to legalize "it", "it" means marijuana, proven by the fact that indeed majority voted to legalize marijuana in the polls. He just wanted to mislead the discussion. You both talk to each other since you seem to have the same purpose.
You know sometimes when people try to insult me I get angry. But when it comes from someone who literally doesn't understand some of the terms he is using how can I be upset. It's really just ironic.
tMomiji above you just gave you a free lesson. Thank him.
Oh, my...it's just an opinion and a theory is all; you'll make me blush and then get all self-important when really I'm just trying to look at both sides of the issue without being biased; last time I got into a nasty fight when I discussed this, so...
Edit: That is, both sides of the criminal issue. If you want to talk about medicine I unfortunately am completely biased on that issue because like I said I can't stand the abuse of legal drugs...
I understand you, I'm very open minded. I'm just pointing out to him that correlation is sometimes causation, as you explained.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
Just because some criminals also smoke pot doesn't mean that the pot is the cause of the other- more dangerous- crimes. To think so is to forget that correlation does not imply causation. Drugs and violence are often found together, but that doesn't mean that "good" people are incapable of handling themselves in the presence of marijuana (which isn't nearly as dangerous as other drugs).
This correlation is not causation crap people say in the internet is absurd. What is there to think about kids, some as young as 10 years old, smoking weed and doing crime? Should we know conclude that coke does not contribute to the obesity of people who drink it everyday. How much evidence do you need to prove causation from correlation?
If you had read my previous comment regarding the legalization of pot (two posts before the one you just commented on), you'd know that I don't like the idea of kids doing drugs in general. However, when you become an adult, it's assumed that you have had the experiences and education to be able to make your own well-informed decisions (especially in regards to your own body), and so I'm not going to tell other adults what they can and cannot do to themselves. If they want my opinion, I'll give it to them... but that's not the same as me asking for a law to be passed forbidding them from being able to try something in the privacy of their own home, where it doesn't ever affect me.
And "correlation not necessarily implying causation" is not crap. It's an important reference and fallacy relating to statistics and mathematics that people often overlook. And as a math educator, I point it out whenever someone falls victim to it. Here's an example:
There's a strong positive correlation between going to bed with your shoes on and waking up in the morning with a headache. Does that mean if you keep your shoes on when you sleep, you'll wake up with a migraine?
Of course not. The reason for such a correlation is because of the lurking variable affecting both of these things: heavy doses of alcohol. It's not the case that sleeping with your shoes on causes headaches, in the same way that smoking pot causes kids to go do violent crimes. However, there may very well be a lurking variable there as well, which leads to both drugs and violent crimes. How about gangs? How about broken homes? How about low socioeconomic status, pre-existing violent behavior, and a lack of education? Regardless, the fact that two things seem to have an association with one another does not necessarily mean that one thing causes another to occur. Correlation does not imply causation.
On October 23 2012 01:13 Nizaris wrote: [quote] positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Everyone wants to legalize crack cocaine? That statement is about as believable as 80% of people who do crimes test for marijuana.
I was talking about marijuana sir. This is a marijuana thread after all.
On October 23 2012 01:16 neggro wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:13 Nizaris wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Maybe you should read what you're responding to then? He says no one said anything about making crack legal. You replied "what do you mean no one? everyone here wants to legalize it."
Did you at any time attend school? The thread as the title clearly suggests is about marijuana. Therefore when I said everyone here wants to legalize "it", "it" means marijuana, proven by the fact that indeed majority voted to legalize marijuana in the polls. He just wanted to mislead the discussion. You both talk to each other since you seem to have the same purpose.
You know sometimes when people try to insult me I get angry. But when it comes from someone who literally doesn't understand some of the terms he is using how can I be upset. It's really just ironic.
tMomiji above you just gave you a free lesson. Thank him.
Oh, my...it's just an opinion and a theory is all; you'll make me blush and then get all self-important when really I'm just trying to look at both sides of the issue without being biased; last time I got into a nasty fight when I discussed this, so...
Edit: That is, both sides of the criminal issue. If you want to talk about medicine I unfortunately am completely biased on that issue because like I said I can't stand the abuse of legal drugs...
I understand you, I'm very open minded. I'm just pointing out to him that correlation is sometimes causation, as you explained.
Oh yes, sometimes, but I don't think marijuana causes kids to commit crimes - that just doesn't add up. However kids who are already committing crimes getting into marijuana makes perfect sense since they are already doing illegal activities, one more most likely wouldn't matter. Also it's apparently a relaxant and I assume kids who are committing crimes don't have the greatest lives (most of the time) and would want to relax and relieve tension. So basically I think the correlation equals causation is true in this case but the cause isn't what people think it is. The already-present crime seems to be the cause; not the marijuana.
AGAIN it's just an opinion and theory! Must I write it in red in big letters on my forehead. XD Disclaimer: THIS IS A THEORY.
Also, there's a difference between implying causation and equaling causation. Correlation always IMPLIES causation. One can imply something but that doesn't mean that something is necessarily true. Just because correlation implies causation, however, does not mean it EQUALS causation.
Just to clear up word definitions because I'm pedantic like that. Ahahaha.
On October 23 2012 01:16 neggro wrote: [quote] marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Everyone wants to legalize crack cocaine? That statement is about as believable as 80% of people who do crimes test for marijuana.
I was talking about marijuana sir. This is a marijuana thread after all.
On October 23 2012 01:16 neggro wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:13 Nizaris wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Maybe you should read what you're responding to then? He says no one said anything about making crack legal. You replied "what do you mean no one? everyone here wants to legalize it."
Did you at any time attend school? The thread as the title clearly suggests is about marijuana. Therefore when I said everyone here wants to legalize "it", "it" means marijuana, proven by the fact that indeed majority voted to legalize marijuana in the polls. He just wanted to mislead the discussion. You both talk to each other since you seem to have the same purpose.
You know sometimes when people try to insult me I get angry. But when it comes from someone who literally doesn't understand some of the terms he is using how can I be upset. It's really just ironic.
tMomiji above you just gave you a free lesson. Thank him.
Oh, my...it's just an opinion and a theory is all; you'll make me blush and then get all self-important when really I'm just trying to look at both sides of the issue without being biased; last time I got into a nasty fight when I discussed this, so...
Edit: That is, both sides of the criminal issue. If you want to talk about medicine I unfortunately am completely biased on that issue because like I said I can't stand the abuse of legal drugs...
I understand you, I'm very open minded. I'm just pointing out to him that correlation is sometimes causation, as you explained.
Oh yes, sometimes, but I don't think marijuana causes kids to commit crimes - that just doesn't add up. However kids who are already committing crimes getting into marijuana makes perfect sense since they are already doing illegal activities, one more most likely wouldn't matter. Also it's apparently a relaxant and I assume kids who are committing crimes don't have the greatest lives (most of the time) and would want to relax and relieve tension. So basically I think the correlation equals causation is true in this case but the cause isn't what people think it is. The already-present crime seems to be the cause; not the marijuana.
AGAIN it's just an opinion and theory! Must I write it in red in big letters on my forehead. XD
It doesn't have to be you who says it either. Any one who says correlation is sometimes causation is correct. Otherwise, the whole point of proving something becomes impossibly difficult. A simple example, you will need to freeze all water in the world at 0 degrees centigrade to know for sure that water freezes at 0 degrees centigrade.
Everyone wants to legalize crack cocaine? That statement is about as believable as 80% of people who do crimes test for marijuana.
I was talking about marijuana sir. This is a marijuana thread after all.
On October 23 2012 01:16 neggro wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:13 Nizaris wrote: [quote] positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Maybe you should read what you're responding to then? He says no one said anything about making crack legal. You replied "what do you mean no one? everyone here wants to legalize it."
Did you at any time attend school? The thread as the title clearly suggests is about marijuana. Therefore when I said everyone here wants to legalize "it", "it" means marijuana, proven by the fact that indeed majority voted to legalize marijuana in the polls. He just wanted to mislead the discussion. You both talk to each other since you seem to have the same purpose.
You know sometimes when people try to insult me I get angry. But when it comes from someone who literally doesn't understand some of the terms he is using how can I be upset. It's really just ironic.
tMomiji above you just gave you a free lesson. Thank him.
Oh, my...it's just an opinion and a theory is all; you'll make me blush and then get all self-important when really I'm just trying to look at both sides of the issue without being biased; last time I got into a nasty fight when I discussed this, so...
Edit: That is, both sides of the criminal issue. If you want to talk about medicine I unfortunately am completely biased on that issue because like I said I can't stand the abuse of legal drugs...
I understand you, I'm very open minded. I'm just pointing out to him that correlation is sometimes causation, as you explained.
Oh yes, sometimes, but I don't think marijuana causes kids to commit crimes - that just doesn't add up. However kids who are already committing crimes getting into marijuana makes perfect sense since they are already doing illegal activities, one more most likely wouldn't matter. Also it's apparently a relaxant and I assume kids who are committing crimes don't have the greatest lives (most of the time) and would want to relax and relieve tension. So basically I think the correlation equals causation is true in this case but the cause isn't what people think it is. The already-present crime seems to be the cause; not the marijuana.
AGAIN it's just an opinion and theory! Must I write it in red in big letters on my forehead. XD
It doesn't have to be you who says it either. Any one who says correlation is sometimes causation is correct. Otherwise, the whole point of proving something becomes impossibly difficult. A simple example, you will need to freeze all water in the world at 0 degrees centigrade to know for sure that water freezes at 0 degrees centigrade.
correlation is sometimes causation.
Uh huh! ...Wow this is taking the same direction that the Slayers disbanding thread is taking. That direction being: "The world is not black and white". ...Hmm, a statement to live by, I suppose~
Everyone wants to legalize crack cocaine? That statement is about as believable as 80% of people who do crimes test for marijuana.
I was talking about marijuana sir. This is a marijuana thread after all.
On October 23 2012 01:16 neggro wrote:
On October 23 2012 01:13 Nizaris wrote: [quote] positive to drugs or positive to MJ ? No1 said anything about making crack legal.
marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Maybe you should read what you're responding to then? He says no one said anything about making crack legal. You replied "what do you mean no one? everyone here wants to legalize it."
Did you at any time attend school? The thread as the title clearly suggests is about marijuana. Therefore when I said everyone here wants to legalize "it", "it" means marijuana, proven by the fact that indeed majority voted to legalize marijuana in the polls. He just wanted to mislead the discussion. You both talk to each other since you seem to have the same purpose.
You know sometimes when people try to insult me I get angry. But when it comes from someone who literally doesn't understand some of the terms he is using how can I be upset. It's really just ironic.
tMomiji above you just gave you a free lesson. Thank him.
Oh, my...it's just an opinion and a theory is all; you'll make me blush and then get all self-important when really I'm just trying to look at both sides of the issue without being biased; last time I got into a nasty fight when I discussed this, so...
Edit: That is, both sides of the criminal issue. If you want to talk about medicine I unfortunately am completely biased on that issue because like I said I can't stand the abuse of legal drugs...
I understand you, I'm very open minded. I'm just pointing out to him that correlation is sometimes causation, as you explained.
Oh yes, sometimes, but I don't think marijuana causes kids to commit crimes - that just doesn't add up. However kids who are already committing crimes getting into marijuana makes perfect sense since they are already doing illegal activities, one more most likely wouldn't matter. Also it's apparently a relaxant and I assume kids who are committing crimes don't have the greatest lives (most of the time) and would want to relax and relieve tension. So basically I think the correlation equals causation is true in this case but the cause isn't what people think it is. The already-present crime seems to be the cause; not the marijuana.
AGAIN it's just an opinion and theory! Must I write it in red in big letters on my forehead. XD
It doesn't have to be you who says it either. Any one who says correlation is sometimes causation is correct. Otherwise, the whole point of proving something becomes impossibly difficult. A simple example, you will need to freeze all water in the world at 0 degrees centigrade to know for sure that water freezes at 0 degrees centigrade.
correlation is sometimes causation.
There is a solution to this.
You are correct on some account. Yes, correlation is sometimes causation, but only or mostly in the positivist realm where model building is easy since the variables and the reaction tend to be the con.sistent This also explains your "water" example. Water in Belgium will generally behave in a similar manner to water in Nicaragua and they will both freeze and boil at 0 and 100 degrees C respectively. On the other hand, in matters that are social in nature, meaning they involve humans and human interaction, there is inherent difficulty in elevating correlation as causation simply because the variables change from one person to another, from one condition to another. It is true what another one said earlier though, to which you agreed also, that while it is not definitive, it should be grounds for further investigation.
On October 23 2012 01:39 neggro wrote: [quote] I was talking about marijuana sir. This is a marijuana thread after all.
On October 23 2012 01:16 neggro wrote: [quote] marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Maybe you should read what you're responding to then? He says no one said anything about making crack legal. You replied "what do you mean no one? everyone here wants to legalize it."
Did you at any time attend school? The thread as the title clearly suggests is about marijuana. Therefore when I said everyone here wants to legalize "it", "it" means marijuana, proven by the fact that indeed majority voted to legalize marijuana in the polls. He just wanted to mislead the discussion. You both talk to each other since you seem to have the same purpose.
You know sometimes when people try to insult me I get angry. But when it comes from someone who literally doesn't understand some of the terms he is using how can I be upset. It's really just ironic.
tMomiji above you just gave you a free lesson. Thank him.
Oh, my...it's just an opinion and a theory is all; you'll make me blush and then get all self-important when really I'm just trying to look at both sides of the issue without being biased; last time I got into a nasty fight when I discussed this, so...
Edit: That is, both sides of the criminal issue. If you want to talk about medicine I unfortunately am completely biased on that issue because like I said I can't stand the abuse of legal drugs...
I understand you, I'm very open minded. I'm just pointing out to him that correlation is sometimes causation, as you explained.
Oh yes, sometimes, but I don't think marijuana causes kids to commit crimes - that just doesn't add up. However kids who are already committing crimes getting into marijuana makes perfect sense since they are already doing illegal activities, one more most likely wouldn't matter. Also it's apparently a relaxant and I assume kids who are committing crimes don't have the greatest lives (most of the time) and would want to relax and relieve tension. So basically I think the correlation equals causation is true in this case but the cause isn't what people think it is. The already-present crime seems to be the cause; not the marijuana.
AGAIN it's just an opinion and theory! Must I write it in red in big letters on my forehead. XD
It doesn't have to be you who says it either. Any one who says correlation is sometimes causation is correct. Otherwise, the whole point of proving something becomes impossibly difficult. A simple example, you will need to freeze all water in the world at 0 degrees centigrade to know for sure that water freezes at 0 degrees centigrade.
correlation is sometimes causation.
There is a solution to this.
You are correct on some account. Yes, correlation is sometimes causation, but only or mostly in the positivist realm where model building is easy since the variables and the reaction tend to be the same. This also explains your "water" example. On the other hand, in matters that are social in nature, meaning they involve humans and human interaction, there is inherent difficulty in elevating correlation as causation simply because the variables change from one person to another, from one condition to another. It is true what another one said earlier though, to which you agreed also, that while it is not definitive, it should be grounds for further investigation.
:D Exactly!! That's what I was trying to say, I just couldn't spit it out as clearly.
On October 23 2012 01:39 neggro wrote: [quote] I was talking about marijuana sir. This is a marijuana thread after all.
On October 23 2012 01:16 neggro wrote: [quote] marijuana I mean. These are juveniles who normally smoke a joint before doing stupid shit. What do you mean no one? Every one here wants to legalize it.
Maybe you should read what you're responding to then? He says no one said anything about making crack legal. You replied "what do you mean no one? everyone here wants to legalize it."
Did you at any time attend school? The thread as the title clearly suggests is about marijuana. Therefore when I said everyone here wants to legalize "it", "it" means marijuana, proven by the fact that indeed majority voted to legalize marijuana in the polls. He just wanted to mislead the discussion. You both talk to each other since you seem to have the same purpose.
You know sometimes when people try to insult me I get angry. But when it comes from someone who literally doesn't understand some of the terms he is using how can I be upset. It's really just ironic.
tMomiji above you just gave you a free lesson. Thank him.
Oh, my...it's just an opinion and a theory is all; you'll make me blush and then get all self-important when really I'm just trying to look at both sides of the issue without being biased; last time I got into a nasty fight when I discussed this, so...
Edit: That is, both sides of the criminal issue. If you want to talk about medicine I unfortunately am completely biased on that issue because like I said I can't stand the abuse of legal drugs...
I understand you, I'm very open minded. I'm just pointing out to him that correlation is sometimes causation, as you explained.
Oh yes, sometimes, but I don't think marijuana causes kids to commit crimes - that just doesn't add up. However kids who are already committing crimes getting into marijuana makes perfect sense since they are already doing illegal activities, one more most likely wouldn't matter. Also it's apparently a relaxant and I assume kids who are committing crimes don't have the greatest lives (most of the time) and would want to relax and relieve tension. So basically I think the correlation equals causation is true in this case but the cause isn't what people think it is. The already-present crime seems to be the cause; not the marijuana.
AGAIN it's just an opinion and theory! Must I write it in red in big letters on my forehead. XD
It doesn't have to be you who says it either. Any one who says correlation is sometimes causation is correct. Otherwise, the whole point of proving something becomes impossibly difficult. A simple example, you will need to freeze all water in the world at 0 degrees centigrade to know for sure that water freezes at 0 degrees centigrade.
correlation is sometimes causation.
There is a solution to this.
You are correct on some account. Yes, correlation is sometimes causation, but only or mostly in the positivist realm where model building is easy since the variables and the reaction tend to be the con.sistent This also explains your "water" example. Water in Belgium will generally behave in a similar manner to water in Nicaragua and they will both freeze and boil at 0 and 100 degrees C respectively. On the other hand, in matters that are social in nature, meaning they involve humans and human interaction, there is inherent difficulty in elevating correlation as causation simply because the variables change from one person to another, from one condition to another. It is true what another one said earlier though, to which you agreed also, that while it is not definitive, it should be grounds for further investigation.
I see your point. Let us use another example. Do we need to test 100, 1million, or every people and make them drink soda every day for 1 year to see if it causes obesity? Or can we just conclude that there is correlation to soda and obesity bot not causation?
Maybe you should read what you're responding to then? He says no one said anything about making crack legal. You replied "what do you mean no one? everyone here wants to legalize it."
Did you at any time attend school? The thread as the title clearly suggests is about marijuana. Therefore when I said everyone here wants to legalize "it", "it" means marijuana, proven by the fact that indeed majority voted to legalize marijuana in the polls. He just wanted to mislead the discussion. You both talk to each other since you seem to have the same purpose.
You know sometimes when people try to insult me I get angry. But when it comes from someone who literally doesn't understand some of the terms he is using how can I be upset. It's really just ironic.
tMomiji above you just gave you a free lesson. Thank him.
Oh, my...it's just an opinion and a theory is all; you'll make me blush and then get all self-important when really I'm just trying to look at both sides of the issue without being biased; last time I got into a nasty fight when I discussed this, so...
Edit: That is, both sides of the criminal issue. If you want to talk about medicine I unfortunately am completely biased on that issue because like I said I can't stand the abuse of legal drugs...
I understand you, I'm very open minded. I'm just pointing out to him that correlation is sometimes causation, as you explained.
Oh yes, sometimes, but I don't think marijuana causes kids to commit crimes - that just doesn't add up. However kids who are already committing crimes getting into marijuana makes perfect sense since they are already doing illegal activities, one more most likely wouldn't matter. Also it's apparently a relaxant and I assume kids who are committing crimes don't have the greatest lives (most of the time) and would want to relax and relieve tension. So basically I think the correlation equals causation is true in this case but the cause isn't what people think it is. The already-present crime seems to be the cause; not the marijuana.
AGAIN it's just an opinion and theory! Must I write it in red in big letters on my forehead. XD
It doesn't have to be you who says it either. Any one who says correlation is sometimes causation is correct. Otherwise, the whole point of proving something becomes impossibly difficult. A simple example, you will need to freeze all water in the world at 0 degrees centigrade to know for sure that water freezes at 0 degrees centigrade.
correlation is sometimes causation.
There is a solution to this.
You are correct on some account. Yes, correlation is sometimes causation, but only or mostly in the positivist realm where model building is easy since the variables and the reaction tend to be the con.sistent This also explains your "water" example. Water in Belgium will generally behave in a similar manner to water in Nicaragua and they will both freeze and boil at 0 and 100 degrees C respectively. On the other hand, in matters that are social in nature, meaning they involve humans and human interaction, there is inherent difficulty in elevating correlation as causation simply because the variables change from one person to another, from one condition to another. It is true what another one said earlier though, to which you agreed also, that while it is not definitive, it should be grounds for further investigation.
I see your point. Let us use another example. Do we need to test 100, 1million, or every people and make them drink soda every day for 1 year to see if it causes obesity? Or can we just conclude that there is correlation to soda and obesity bot not causation?
While your examples involves humans, it involves physical properties of human and not social, although there may be some of that also involved here. The only thing to study here is the effect on soda on the body, which can be done independently. It can as well be reinforced by a thorough study of people with obesity. There are many more approaches to arrive at a definite conclusion on this one. But the factors here are not social in nature.
On October 23 2012 01:48 neggro wrote: [quote] Did you at any time attend school? The thread as the title clearly suggests is about marijuana. Therefore when I said everyone here wants to legalize "it", "it" means marijuana, proven by the fact that indeed majority voted to legalize marijuana in the polls. He just wanted to mislead the discussion. You both talk to each other since you seem to have the same purpose.
You know sometimes when people try to insult me I get angry. But when it comes from someone who literally doesn't understand some of the terms he is using how can I be upset. It's really just ironic.
tMomiji above you just gave you a free lesson. Thank him.
Oh, my...it's just an opinion and a theory is all; you'll make me blush and then get all self-important when really I'm just trying to look at both sides of the issue without being biased; last time I got into a nasty fight when I discussed this, so...
Edit: That is, both sides of the criminal issue. If you want to talk about medicine I unfortunately am completely biased on that issue because like I said I can't stand the abuse of legal drugs...
I understand you, I'm very open minded. I'm just pointing out to him that correlation is sometimes causation, as you explained.
Oh yes, sometimes, but I don't think marijuana causes kids to commit crimes - that just doesn't add up. However kids who are already committing crimes getting into marijuana makes perfect sense since they are already doing illegal activities, one more most likely wouldn't matter. Also it's apparently a relaxant and I assume kids who are committing crimes don't have the greatest lives (most of the time) and would want to relax and relieve tension. So basically I think the correlation equals causation is true in this case but the cause isn't what people think it is. The already-present crime seems to be the cause; not the marijuana.
AGAIN it's just an opinion and theory! Must I write it in red in big letters on my forehead. XD
It doesn't have to be you who says it either. Any one who says correlation is sometimes causation is correct. Otherwise, the whole point of proving something becomes impossibly difficult. A simple example, you will need to freeze all water in the world at 0 degrees centigrade to know for sure that water freezes at 0 degrees centigrade.
correlation is sometimes causation.
There is a solution to this.
You are correct on some account. Yes, correlation is sometimes causation, but only or mostly in the positivist realm where model building is easy since the variables and the reaction tend to be the con.sistent This also explains your "water" example. Water in Belgium will generally behave in a similar manner to water in Nicaragua and they will both freeze and boil at 0 and 100 degrees C respectively. On the other hand, in matters that are social in nature, meaning they involve humans and human interaction, there is inherent difficulty in elevating correlation as causation simply because the variables change from one person to another, from one condition to another. It is true what another one said earlier though, to which you agreed also, that while it is not definitive, it should be grounds for further investigation.
I see your point. Let us use another example. Do we need to test 100, 1million, or every people and make them drink soda every day for 1 year to see if it causes obesity? Or can we just conclude that there is correlation to soda and obesity bot not causation?
While your examples involves humans, it involves physical properties of human and not social, although there may be some of that also involved here. The only thing to study here is the effect on soda on the body, which can be done independently. It can as well be reinforced by a thorough study of people with obesity. There are many more approaches to arrive at a definite conclusion on this one. But the factors here are not social in nature.
I see. Ok I'll think about it, but this is enough from me here for now.
i think your misleading yourself. what makes something more likely to have a causal effect with correlation is that there are more controlled variables. with marijuana, there are many uncontrolled variables that affect your argument, like social and economic status. the fact that you have to break the law to smoke marijuana and commit crimes commits bias, since your samples wont be as diverse as the population. with something like soda, there is evidence for ever kind of person that it is associated with becoming fat. the argument this entire argument is based, the one that because 80% of people committing crimes does drugs means there is a causal link between marijuana and crimes, on is flawed, and i want you to know that.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
....I don't know what I can and can't say on this forum, heard the moderators can be quite nazi at times. But you sir are part of the invisible cancer in our society. Perpetuating this establishment, protecting it with your guns. I despise you.
Of course criminal youths turn to drugs, it's obvious. They feel like their lives are more or less forfeit, they have no place in society and everything is pointless. Why not do drugs in that situation? Everyone would. You too my disgusting little piggie.
You never once stopped to think why you arrest people do you? Why these young criminals exist, and why they turn to drugs? Society turned their backs on them! This system of money is like a game of musical chairs, there ain't enough for everybody and you have to be sneaky, fast or have sharp elbows to win. Those people who are born with a sense of empathy and enjoy seeing other people happy? You know, good people? They don't get rich because they realize that they have to step on their fellow men to do so. And what do you do? You hunt them, instead of helping them. Why? No profit in helping them. You are the invisible hand, as described by Adam Smith. It's your job to make sure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. And you don't even know it.
Do yourself a favor, stop being a cop. Maybe there's still time for you to do some actual good in this world.
Worth it.
You are fucking right, Sir!
Thanks. It warms my heart to know I'm not alone in the world. I like how neggro infests this thread with asinine comments and yet ignores me completely. Standard American model of deflecting and ignoring opponents. And he calls himself open minded. Funny.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
....I don't know what I can and can't say on this forum, heard the moderators can be quite nazi at times. But you sir are part of the invisible cancer in our society. Perpetuating this establishment, protecting it with your guns. I despise you.
Of course criminal youths turn to drugs, it's obvious. They feel like their lives are more or less forfeit, they have no place in society and everything is pointless. Why not do drugs in that situation? Everyone would. You too my disgusting little piggie.
You never once stopped to think why you arrest people do you? Why these young criminals exist, and why they turn to drugs? Society turned their backs on them! This system of money is like a game of musical chairs, there ain't enough for everybody and you have to be sneaky, fast or have sharp elbows to win. Those people who are born with a sense of empathy and enjoy seeing other people happy? You know, good people? They don't get rich because they realize that they have to step on their fellow men to do so. And what do you do? You hunt them, instead of helping them. Why? No profit in helping them. You are the invisible hand, as described by Adam Smith. It's your job to make sure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. And you don't even know it.
Do yourself a favor, stop being a cop. Maybe there's still time for you to do some actual good in this world.
Worth it.
You are fucking right, Sir!
Thanks. It warms my heart to know I'm not alone in the world. I like how neggro infests this thread with asinine comments and yet ignores me completely. Standard American model of deflecting and ignoring opponents. And he calls himself open minded. Funny.
And generalizing Americans is what, not asinine? Just because Mr. Kettle argues poorly doesn't mean Mr. Pot isn't a dick when he stereotypes like a Westboro Baptist.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
Just because some criminals also smoke pot doesn't mean that the pot is the cause of the other- more dangerous- crimes. To think so is to forget that correlation does not imply causation. Drugs and violence are often found together, but that doesn't mean that "good" people are incapable of handling themselves in the presence of marijuana (which isn't nearly as dangerous as other drugs).
This correlation is not causation crap people say in the internet is absurd. What is there to think about kids, some as young as 10 years old, smoking weed and doing crime? Should we know conclude that coke does not contribute to the obesity of people who drink it everyday. How much evidence do you need to prove causation from correlation?
Gosh, do you honestly believe smoking pot makes people more likely to do crime? If not wtf are you arguing? Are you confused about what correlation does not equal causation means?
If 80% is not enough by personal experience and official record, what then? Should we test all children and make then smoke pot and see if there is any correlation bullshit to prove the point. Some of you need to be awakened to real life and stop dreaming that life is all the rainbows and unicorns you learn in your philosophy classes.
links, etc, where are these records? can you please explain why you think one would take kind of a 'downer' and go about doing crime? Or is it more an 'environment' issue, case in which legalising it would actually make sense?
Or are you just saying that 80% of kids arrested are arrested for consuming/possesion, hence 80% of kids arrested are drug-related crimes? lolo
Asking all these since we already established pot, crack etc are just words for you and you don't really seem to know what you're talking about
Go to your nearest police station and look it up. What? You want to be spoon fed now?
The f are you talking about? I forgot to tell you, I'm also a policeman and 80% of crimes today are related to donkeys making silly claims on the internet.
My questions to you were a way to establish if you know the difference between 'pot', 'crack', how people act, effects, you know, shit that probably is crucial in your job if you actually have to deal with this stuff regularly. But that's garbage yo, keep being a smart ass online and tell us how weed encourages crime, cos, you know, you said you were police on the internet and you have the stats, sooo, it must be true. You're like a scientist, basically.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
....I don't know what I can and can't say on this forum, heard the moderators can be quite nazi at times. But you sir are part of the invisible cancer in our society. Perpetuating this establishment, protecting it with your guns. I despise you.
Of course criminal youths turn to drugs, it's obvious. They feel like their lives are more or less forfeit, they have no place in society and everything is pointless. Why not do drugs in that situation? Everyone would. You too my disgusting little piggie.
You never once stopped to think why you arrest people do you? Why these young criminals exist, and why they turn to drugs? Society turned their backs on them! This system of money is like a game of musical chairs, there ain't enough for everybody and you have to be sneaky, fast or have sharp elbows to win. Those people who are born with a sense of empathy and enjoy seeing other people happy? You know, good people? They don't get rich because they realize that they have to step on their fellow men to do so. And what do you do? You hunt them, instead of helping them. Why? No profit in helping them. You are the invisible hand, as described by Adam Smith. It's your job to make sure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. And you don't even know it.
Do yourself a favor, stop being a cop. Maybe there's still time for you to do some actual good in this world.
Worth it.
haha, this is a funny comment.
Pity i hadn't read your comment on neggro not being openminded. That one's even funnier.
hmm... its pretty crazy to try and think about this issue without being biased due to the "lessons" (propaganda) we are exposed to constantly.
During the original trial making marijuana illegal it was testified as evidence that smoking this substance would cause white women to listen to jazz music and sleep with black men. Thousands of additional racist slurs against blacks and mexicans were also propagated to the nation and the jury during this time. From these points I think its obvious it needs another look.
When compared to alcohol its clearly less damaging to your body and less prone to cause violence. So while I enjoy both smoking weed and drinking beers I cannot see why one is illegal and the other is not.
The war on drugs is a massive waste of money that could be used to explore the deepest parts of our planet or the furthest reaches of our solar system or keep starving children in third world countries fed and educated. Given the alternatives I do not support the war on drugs. If drugs were legal the government stands to make significant money from the distribution of recreational marijuana. The laws would accurately reflect driving impaired and intoxicated in public still.
A large point is that (ironically) morally high people seem to believe that the law is the only thing keeping the majority of society from killing raping and robbing everyone. it will never become a requirement to smoke weed so only those interested will partake in a more safe, regulated, and government profitable way. I don't think I can think of a single disadvantage to legalizing weed. Government profit and saving tonnes of money. Crime rate way down.... the list goes on. Oh the disadvantage might be whomever legalizes it would be persecuted and unsupported by those who willingly submit to the ignorant hereditary prejudices placed forth by which ever cult organization they subscribe to.
The most credible study regarding the effects of marijuana are flimsy ties to short term memory loss and damage to your lungs that occurs no matter which smoke you inhale. The real concern with pot smokers is the comfort that feel in being unproductive. And being unproductive for years will make you stupid. I don't think these things warrant a ban. And if they do, there are numerous other substances that need to be investigated.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
....I don't know what I can and can't say on this forum, heard the moderators can be quite nazi at times. But you sir are part of the invisible cancer in our society. Perpetuating this establishment, protecting it with your guns. I despise you.
Of course criminal youths turn to drugs, it's obvious. They feel like their lives are more or less forfeit, they have no place in society and everything is pointless. Why not do drugs in that situation? Everyone would. You too my disgusting little piggie.
You never once stopped to think why you arrest people do you? Why these young criminals exist, and why they turn to drugs? Society turned their backs on them! This system of money is like a game of musical chairs, there ain't enough for everybody and you have to be sneaky, fast or have sharp elbows to win. Those people who are born with a sense of empathy and enjoy seeing other people happy? You know, good people? They don't get rich because they realize that they have to step on their fellow men to do so. And what do you do? You hunt them, instead of helping them. Why? No profit in helping them. You are the invisible hand, as described by Adam Smith. It's your job to make sure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. And you don't even know it.
Do yourself a favor, stop being a cop. Maybe there's still time for you to do some actual good in this world.
Worth it.
You are fucking right, Sir!
Thanks. It warms my heart to know I'm not alone in the world. I like how neggro infests this thread with asinine comments and yet ignores me completely. Standard American model of deflecting and ignoring opponents. And he calls himself open minded. Funny.
That's because what you said is retarded in the extreme.
It's your job to make sure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. And you don't even know it.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
....I don't know what I can and can't say on this forum, heard the moderators can be quite nazi at times. But you sir are part of the invisible cancer in our society. Perpetuating this establishment, protecting it with your guns. I despise you.
Of course criminal youths turn to drugs, it's obvious. They feel like their lives are more or less forfeit, they have no place in society and everything is pointless. Why not do drugs in that situation? Everyone would. You too my disgusting little piggie.
You never once stopped to think why you arrest people do you? Why these young criminals exist, and why they turn to drugs? Society turned their backs on them! This system of money is like a game of musical chairs, there ain't enough for everybody and you have to be sneaky, fast or have sharp elbows to win. Those people who are born with a sense of empathy and enjoy seeing other people happy? You know, good people? They don't get rich because they realize that they have to step on their fellow men to do so. And what do you do? You hunt them, instead of helping them. Why? No profit in helping them. You are the invisible hand, as described by Adam Smith. It's your job to make sure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. And you don't even know it.
Do yourself a favor, stop being a cop. Maybe there's still time for you to do some actual good in this world.
There is a new group Marijuana Majority (http://marijuanamajority.com)
About Marijuana Majority
What do evangelical Christian Pat Robertson, progressive media maven Arianna Huffington, conservative businessman David Koch, actor Morgan Freeman and rapper Snoop Dogg have in common?
Probably only one thing: They all think our marijuana criminalization laws don't work, cause harm and need to change. Polls show that a majority of Americans agree with them:
Washington Post/ABC found 81% support for allowing medical marijuana. Time/CNN found 72% support for replacing jail time with a fine for people caught with small amounts of marijuana. Gallup found 50% support for legalizing marijuana altogether.
Still, too many elected officials continue to act as if there's some political reason to keep supporting marijuana policies that almost everyone knows have failed. And too many people who agree that now is the time for change remain reluctant to speak out.
Marijuana Majority exists to help more people understand the simple fact that supporting commonsense solutions like regulating marijuana sales and ending marijuana arrests are mainstream positions and that there's no reason those who support reform should be afraid to say so.
We provide resources that make it easy for individual supporters to take part in actively building the Marijuana Majority by contacting celebrities, elected officials and opinion leaders to encourage them to add their voices to the debate.
Inquiries can be sent to info@marijuanamajority.com.
“I think that most small amounts of marijuana have been decriminalized in some places, and should be. We really need a re-examination of our entire policy on imprisonment.” Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States
“It's just the stupidest law possible... You're just making criminals out of people who aren't engaged in criminal activity. And we're spending zillions of dollars trying to fight a war we can't win! We could make zillions, just legalize it and tax it like we do liquor. It's stupid.” Morgan Freeman, Academy Award-Winning Actor
“The main point in [our] report was to recommend decriminalization...because of the way laws are applied, which have not worked. We have applied them for decades and it's got the prisons filled with lots of young people who sometimes come out destroyed for having half an ounce... [W]e should approach it through education [and] health issues rather than a brutal reaction... There is need for change in policy, but it has to start with debate and discussion... I think the whole approach has to be reviewed.” Kofi Annan, Former Secretary-General of United Nations
Some of its supporters: Pat Robertson Arianna Huffington Rahm Emanuel Richard Posner Sarah Palin Brad Pitt Black Jack Benecio del Toro Jesse Jackson Sean Parker
On thing that the OP fails to mention is the funding in Cannabis research. That is the singular reason why it is difficult to translate research into legislation or as a tool for policy making because there are multibillion interests at stake, and they are waging the first phase of the war in the laboratories.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
....I don't know what I can and can't say on this forum, heard the moderators can be quite nazi at times. But you sir are part of the invisible cancer in our society. Perpetuating this establishment, protecting it with your guns. I despise you.
Of course criminal youths turn to drugs, it's obvious. They feel like their lives are more or less forfeit, they have no place in society and everything is pointless. Why not do drugs in that situation? Everyone would. You too my disgusting little piggie.
You never once stopped to think why you arrest people do you? Why these young criminals exist, and why they turn to drugs? Society turned their backs on them! This system of money is like a game of musical chairs, there ain't enough for everybody and you have to be sneaky, fast or have sharp elbows to win. Those people who are born with a sense of empathy and enjoy seeing other people happy? You know, good people? They don't get rich because they realize that they have to step on their fellow men to do so. And what do you do? You hunt them, instead of helping them. Why? No profit in helping them. You are the invisible hand, as described by Adam Smith. It's your job to make sure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. And you don't even know it.
Do yourself a favor, stop being a cop. Maybe there's still time for you to do some actual good in this world.
Worth it.
You are fucking right, Sir!
Thanks. It warms my heart to know I'm not alone in the world. I like how neggro infests this thread with asinine comments and yet ignores me completely. Standard American model of deflecting and ignoring opponents. And he calls himself open minded. Funny.
And generalizing Americans is what, not asinine? Just because Mr. Kettle argues poorly doesn't mean Mr. Pot isn't a dick when he stereotypes like a Westboro Baptist.
Fair enough, that was uncalled for. I apologize. Cops tend to bring out the worst in me.
haha, this is a funny comment.
Pity i hadn't read your comment on neggro not being openminded. That one's even funnier.
That's because what you said is retarded in the extreme.
It's your job to make sure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. And you don't even know it.
Give me a fucking break.
This is just really retarded.
You know what's retarded guys? Your replies. Argue instead of marginalizing and ridiculing please. If you think my viewpoint is way off then please, enlighten me.
And mr. Moderator why'd you warn ODK just for agreeing with me? Please warn me instead! It was an aggressive post and I could live with a warning, but ODK didn't rly do anything wrong did he?
And mr. Moderator why'd you warn ODK just for agreeing with me? Please warn me instead! It was an aggressive post and I could live with a warning, but ODK didn't rly do anything wrong did he?
because +1 type posts are frowned upon here. Saying you agree with some1 without adding anything of value is pretty much worthless, all we'd have is threads filled with posts 'i agree'.
On October 21 2012 23:21 SopJanne wrote: I'm all for legalizing marijuana. Maybe because I've been smoking it almost daily for 2 years now. I haven't really noticed that many changes since i started smoking, my memory is a bit worse (was shit to being with) but during the longer breaks I've head, like 3 weeks, I've noticed it returning somewhat.
And for those who say you get lazy and don't do shit all day, I workout 5 days a week and work at the same time, I just smoke in the evenings. As far as health risks regarding the drug there's a lot of studies saying different things, but from what I've "researched" myself it does seem to be less harmful than tobacco and alcohol.
"Cannabis smoke contains numerous carcinogens.[5][6][7] Surprisingly, an extensive study published in 2006 by Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles found that there is no significant link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer.[8] The study, which involved a large population sample (1,200 people with lung, neck, or head cancer, and a matching group of 1,040 without cancer) found no correlation between marijuana smoking and increased lung cancer risk, with the same being true for head and neck cancers as well. The results indicated no correlation between long and short-term cannabis use and cancer, indicating a possible therapeutic effect. Extensive cellular studies and some studies in animal models suggest that THC or cannabidiol has antitumor properties, either by encouraging programmed cell death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous, or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors, or both.[9]
Prior, a 1997 study examining the records of 64,855 Kaiser patients (14,033 of whom identified themselves as current smokers), also found no positive correlation between cannabis use and cancer.[10]"
I'm not saying weed ain't harmful, it might be but there's way too little independent research being done, mainly because the drug is illegal.
2 persons walk over a field of grass. Person A does it daily, Person B does it once a year.
When person B returns after a year, he sees how it aint grass any longer on the path he walked one year ago. While Person A hasn't seen it change. It hasn't crossed his mind as he daily walks the path.
It does have effect on your brain but it's something you only can see overtime. And these effects are permanent on your mind. The way your mind slows down, it'll remain at that level if you smoke daily too long.
It's not natural for the body to be high that often.
On October 22 2012 19:02 rhythmrenegade wrote: This is a common situation on TL.
An issue comes up for discussion and people begin to take moral standpoints based on the societal context of their upbringing. In other words, posters bring a bag full of 'must/must nots' and 'should/should nots' to the discussion and open that bag, fully believing that the contents of their bag are superior or more natural than the contents of other posters' bags. Debate ensues and we wind up with little critical discussion of either side of the issue.
What is missing is a critical discussion of the sociological aspect of drug use: how society and social norms determine how we contextualize drug use. Here is a good primer on that:
It's not natural for the body to be high that often.
And you know this how...?
It does have effect on your brain but it's something you only can see overtime. And these effects are permanent on your mind. The way your mind slows down, it'll remain at that level if you smoke daily too long.
I've been smoking daily for 10 years with only 2 breaks - one was 9 months, the other 4 - and it hasn't slowed my mind down. And if it does make someone's mind "slow down," that's their choice, not yours. Is it making them incapable of operating in society?
On October 22 2012 19:02 rhythmrenegade wrote: This is a common situation on TL.
An issue comes up for discussion and people begin to take moral standpoints based on the societal context of their upbringing. In other words, posters bring a bag full of 'must/must nots' and 'should/should nots' to the discussion and open that bag, fully believing that the contents of their bag are superior or more natural than the contents of other posters' bags. Debate ensues and we wind up with little critical discussion of either side of the issue.
What is missing is a critical discussion of the sociological aspect of drug use: how society and social norms determine how we contextualize drug use. Here is a good primer on that:
Please include a sociology section in the OP; if you like, I will write and expand it, just let me know!
Interesting. Can you elaborate on this please.
It's basically some nice academicspeak about how people are mindless sheeple and other fantasies of the ivory tower. Of course people think they're right, and of course most people base that thinking off what they were taught by their parents and teachers and friends and neighbors. The idea that this thinking is not "critical" is an ego-stroking assertion that exists for little reason other than to make academics feel superior, and give them an easy way to add a layer of claimed legitimacy to their own opinions, which otherwise they would have to acknowledge as not being intrinsically superior to anyone else's. People reassess their beliefs constantly, as circumstances bring up opportunity.
On October 21 2012 17:41 JieXian wrote: Someday this guy should get a star for his OPs. Lives up to his name, though I have little knowledge on the topic
I'm surprised France isn't in orange based on what my teacher told me.
Edit oh wait reading wikipedia cleared it up
France should be orange, yes.
Really? The wikipedia entry on it looked really scary, especially when you contrast it with Germany's
What do evangelical Christian Pat Robertson, progressive media maven Arianna Huffington, conservative businessman David Koch, actor Morgan Freeman and rapper Snoop Dogg have in common?
Probably only one thing: They all think our marijuana criminalization laws don't work, cause harm and need to change. Polls show that a majority of Americans agree with them:
Washington Post/ABC found 81% support for allowing medical marijuana. Time/CNN found 72% support for replacing jail time with a fine for people caught with small amounts of marijuana. Gallup found 50% support for legalizing marijuana altogether.
Still, too many elected officials continue to act as if there's some political reason to keep supporting marijuana policies that almost everyone knows have failed. And too many people who agree that now is the time for change remain reluctant to speak out.
Marijuana Majority exists to help more people understand the simple fact that supporting commonsense solutions like regulating marijuana sales and ending marijuana arrests are mainstream positions and that there's no reason those who support reform should be afraid to say so.
We provide resources that make it easy for individual supporters to take part in actively building the Marijuana Majority by contacting celebrities, elected officials and opinion leaders to encourage them to add their voices to the debate.
Inquiries can be sent to info@marijuanamajority.com.
“I think that most small amounts of marijuana have been decriminalized in some places, and should be. We really need a re-examination of our entire policy on imprisonment.” Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States
“It's just the stupidest law possible... You're just making criminals out of people who aren't engaged in criminal activity. And we're spending zillions of dollars trying to fight a war we can't win! We could make zillions, just legalize it and tax it like we do liquor. It's stupid.” Morgan Freeman, Academy Award-Winning Actor
“The main point in [our] report was to recommend decriminalization...because of the way laws are applied, which have not worked. We have applied them for decades and it's got the prisons filled with lots of young people who sometimes come out destroyed for having half an ounce... [W]e should approach it through education [and] health issues rather than a brutal reaction... There is need for change in policy, but it has to start with debate and discussion... I think the whole approach has to be reviewed.” Kofi Annan, Former Secretary-General of United Nations
Some of its supporters: Pat Robertson Arianna Huffington Rahm Emanuel Richard Posner Sarah Palin Brad Pitt Black Jack Benecio del Toro Jesse Jackson Sean Parker
Hey, don't forget the others Pamela Anderson Rihanna Kanye West Shaquille Oneal
On October 22 2012 20:10 Vei wrote: why do you refer to it as marijuana and not its scientific/accurate name of Cannabis / cannabis sativa
calling it Marijuana is like discussing prostitution but referring to it as brotheling or something
Yeah I think marijuana was a term coined by anti cannabis american politicians to make it sound ´scarier´ (not really the right word) in the ears of the population.
As I understand it, cannabis was given the name marijuana to make it sound more spanish/non-white, and at the time white supremacy was more widespread, or at least visibly so, in America. This keeps it out of white supremacists hands at the very least, because they will do what they are told (and that's what makes them racist in the first place).
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
Is this a firsthand statistic? Because if it's hearsay, I'll remind you that testing positive to drugs is a crime in most areas. You may as well say that 80% of the people you bring in are booked for cannabis use only.
this is a tale of two scvs who one day gathered behind an orbital to hit the trees. rolled up the metal sleeves, gauged the breeze and took flight instead of scouting for Z's and P's. one of the two, Larry, started coughing and making a scene. knocked a mineral patch off the map while reaching for his green. didn't flinch or nothing but kept it lit and puffing, sticking nugs where the minerals ought to go in. the other gave him a nudge and then after a pass, pointed to a geyser now fit to grab gas. Larry scoffed at the crass then hit his own shit, and heaved a hot yellow plume like he had his weapon refit. then his buddy Carter hit it even harder, and shot a lazy rocket off just like a marauder. it hit a third scv. square to the gut. he keeled over coughing, and nearly died from the stuff. got up to finish his depot-- dropped his metal trousers and forgot where all the pieces go. after a moment he found it. made a few circles around it. whipped out his fusion cutter just to raze it like a stick of butter. he wouldn't go back to the line now. he couldn't. thought for half a minute. caught up with Larry. booked it without leaving a footprint
by now the main was heavily populated. and cliff to cliff Terran units propagated. not a direction lay unmolested for more than a mile. so the three bolted down the ramp in a single file. that's when Carl saw a fourth SCV crack a smile. Johnny. just finished the natural. and look at that. it was finally done. he caught a whiff of the reefer and his ticker started to run. managed to skate with a case of cold beer. a bargaining chip to offer our three musketeers.
they took off again, now four to their line, smoke grinding their chrome teddy bear suits to rinds. a J went from the front to the back then from the back to the front. and when it was out, Carter rolled a blunt. they kept going like that, maybe for days. dodging friends, dodging foes and all the time hitting haze. then one day Carter dug for a pinch, and came up with some spare change and loose lint.
you see, Carter's a miser without his portable geyser. with no drugs on the map he had buy from Pfizer. didn't dig pills though, they filled his suit with sweat so he'd have to grow gills so, at long last they found a fresh main, eight ripe patches and two geysers within range. they built an entire city on blades of ember grain, pitched tents to shield their bud from the rain, taxed it to fund roads, schools, asylums for the insane. minerals were no currency here. what you wanted cost substance, and substance wasn't beer.
weeks went by and we saw the base thrive, but Johnny's mental fell straight into a nose dive. "I want the hot sweaty drills and the shiny blue hills. no private property, responsibilities, paying bills. look at your mules. they eat cannabis for fuel!" Larry went to Johnny, "dood, what's the big deal?" "since we left we haven't had a hot meal, too much time to think and no water to drink, just the heinies i managed to steal."
Larry thought and said, "let's see what I've got packed. damn. there's just a few rax and a fac left in my sack." "well, should we go back?" "fuck that. whether or not our main's under attack. sure you haven't eaten but you took your life back." "but don't you want a family some day? what about that? not to mention I left my cigarettes, gold lighter and swiss army knife." after a long beat, Larry drew an ornate fife. and played an old Terran folk song for what seemed like Larry's whole life. "fuck kids, fuck a wife. breathe deep, dood, we live the scv life."
getting high has given be a perspective on the world i am not sure i could have gotten without. i was able to see without having my vision clouded by ego. i was able to truly understand and appreciate the consequences of many things i took for granted without giving much thought.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
They don't get rich because they realize that they have to step on their fellow men to do so. And what do you do? You hunt them, instead of helping them. Why? No profit in helping them. You are the invisible hand, as described by Adam Smith. It's your job to make sure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. And you don't even know it.
Do yourself a favor, stop being a cop. Maybe there's still time for you to do some actual good in this world.
Worth it.
Wow...just wow.
What makes people rich is a combination of/either inheritance, hard work, ambition, innovation and what makes people poor is a combination of/either illness, bad luck, born to dropkick parents, being a drop kick, low ambition, laziness etc. I don't see how the police fits at all in this equation.
Anyways on topic: Legalize it! It was what kept me sane when I walked into a lecture in 3rd year statistics.
On October 23 2012 01:12 neggro wrote: There is a reason marijuana is illegal in the US. Hardcore statistic: In my 2 years in the police force, 80% of all the juvenile crimes are done by people who test positive to drugs.
ILLEGAL
They don't get rich because they realize that they have to step on their fellow men to do so. And what do you do? You hunt them, instead of helping them. Why? No profit in helping them. You are the invisible hand, as described by Adam Smith. It's your job to make sure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. And you don't even know it.
Do yourself a favor, stop being a cop. Maybe there's still time for you to do some actual good in this world.
Worth it.
Wow...just wow.
What makes people rich is a combination of/either inheritance, hard work, ambition, innovation and what makes people poor is a combination of/either illness, bad luck, born to dropkick parents, being a drop kick, low ambition, laziness etc. I don't see how the police fits at all in this equation.
Anyways on topic: Legalize it! It was what kept me sane when I walked into a lecture in 3rd year statistics.
The job of the police is to shepherd the population, to make sure they stay in line. Through this job they are effectively the first line of defense of the establishment. The establishment seeks to maintain the status quo. But it is a matter of perspective.
If a starving man steals from a rich man, the police will arrest him. Is the starving man to blame for his behavior? Not if you ask me. He does what is necessary to survive. That is instinct, not free will. Society is to blame for creating absurd amounts of inequality and concepts like "private property". The problem is that they also do a damn good job of conditioning the population into supporting these ideas. If you ask most people today if they have any opinions on social construction and how things should be concerning things like private property for example, most people don't even know what you're talking about, they look at you with a face that says "... there are alternatives?"
As you can see, your frame of reference is probably different from mine. In my opinion, our society and it's rules have failed horribly, and today it caters only to those in a position of relative advantage. Even though many of us see the backsides of capitalism and understand that it is doomed to fail, the people in power do a damn good job of marginalizing the alternatives. With words like "freedom". You think we are free? We are not free, far from it. But we are being constantly told that we are, it's probably one of the most common words in American media. They show you movies and pictures of concentration camps and starving children and say " These people live in a country without freedom! Look what happens!" which lets you say to yourself "At least my life isn't as bad as theirs. It could be worse."
Capitalism = Freedom. That is basically how it is today. Any attempt to criticize capitalism means that you hate freedom.
Let me share something with you. Freedom is just an empty word. Something politicians and capitalists use to line their pockets with gold. There is no such thing as free choice or free will in a society like ours. Every choice you make is heavily influenced by your environment. Parents, peers, the media, the government. These factors shape your decisions, not some misguided notion of "free will".
Sorry for all the ranting To go back OnT and, in my opinion, finish this silly discussion of whether a plant, a PLANT, should be illegal or not, there is but one thing to say;
When Cannabis was made illegal there had been no medical research done on the subject. It was banned for other reasons. Are there any good reasons for banning a plant other than medical ones? You could think about it for a while, or you could listen to me when I tell you the answer is no. Even if everything was true about Cannabis and it was dangerous and banned on medical grounds, it's not a good reason. Man should not have such power over his fellow sojourners on this planet.
Accidently voted that it should be "illegalized" but I heavily support the legalization of marijuana. The only reason it is illegal in the first place is because some guy bullshitted that it promotes interracial sex (as if there was anything wrong with that).
Fairly sure the real societal problem is the majority of people who use it are completely irresponsible. It's not inherent or exclusive to marijuana but unless the people who use it now show signs of maturity and responsibility in relation to it I don't think it's a good thing to legalize it at all. I'm fine with legalizing marijuana on principle, but given the society mentality of those who do use it I don't think it's a good idea.
I will freely admit that it's illegitimate to make opinion into law and that the government shouldn't take away a freedom and take responsibility for people's actions, Maybe there should be similar age or medical restrictions placed on marijuana as any other pharmaceutical / drug that's well documented that's enforced with criminal consequences, if that were the case it might be okay.
On October 28 2012 22:44 Bolty wrote: The job of the police is to shepherd the population, to make sure they stay in line. Through this job they are effectively the first line of defense of the establishment. The establishment seeks to maintain the status quo. But it is a matter of perspective.
If a starving man steals from a rich man, the police will arrest him. Is the starving man to blame for his behavior? Not if you ask me. He does what is necessary to survive. That is instinct, not free will. Society is to blame for creating absurd amounts of inequality and concepts like "private property". The problem is that they also do a damn good job of conditioning the population into supporting these ideas. If you ask most people today if they have any opinions on social construction and how things should be concerning things like private property for example, most people don't even know what you're talking about, they look at you with a face that says "... there are alternatives?"
As you can see, your frame of reference is probably different from mine. In my opinion, our society and it's rules have failed horribly, and today it caters only to those in a position of relative advantage. Even though many of us see the backsides of capitalism and understand that it is doomed to fail, the people in power do a damn good job of marginalizing the alternatives. With words like "freedom". You think we are free? We are not free, far from it. But we are being constantly told that we are, it's probably one of the most common words in American media. They show you movies and pictures of concentration camps and starving children and say " These people live in a country without freedom! Look what happens!" which lets you say to yourself "At least my life isn't as bad as theirs. It could be worse."
Capitalism = Freedom. That is basically how it is today. Any attempt to criticize capitalism means that you hate freedom.
Let me share something with you. Freedom is just an empty word. Something politicians and capitalists use to line their pockets with gold. There is no such thing as free choice or free will in a society like ours. Every choice you make is heavily influenced by your environment. Parents, peers, the media, the government. These factors shape your decisions, not some misguided notion of "free will".
Absolute freedom cannot exist. Animals have absolute freedom, and even they are not free to wander their world without fear of being savagely murdered by any one of a million deadly things out there. To say a population has freedom is a flasehood, but not a malicious one the way you are making it out to be. It is only referred to as such because it just happens to be the best moniker for the situation. Maybe "freedom" isn't the right word... "liberties" probably suits better.
But if you compare the liberties of the western world vs. liberties of second or third world countires, you can see the contrast very easily. We can complain that America has a two party electoral system, but if you view that against a facist dictatorship, which group of people is more towards the "free" end of the spectrum? It's all in context (or frame of reference as you put it).
Society and its rules haven't failed horribly. If it had failed horribly, you even wouldn't be able to walk outside; it'd be complete anarchy. "Hey, your wife is hot... I'm going to fuck her right in front of you".... THAT'S society after it has failed. "There's a ten foot pile of garbage on my lawn, and somebody just stabbed me"... THAT'S society after it has failed. "You can't smoke that, it's against the law"... that's NOT society failing, that's society controlling something it shouldn't... that's misaligned priorities.
The system is in place because it's the best system for our world right now. It's not perfect. It will never be perfect. But it allows people who live within it to actually hold onto some semblance of freedom and lifestyle... that's the job of the system. Not to keep people down and other people up, but to make it so that everyone can function together without murdering each other. Think about it: why does government exist? Because there are too many people for government not to exist.
FYI, advocate for legalization here. I'm not saying this as part of a "regulate it" argument. Just devil's advocate.
OP left out possible psychological effects induced by marijuana. There's clearly an effect on your perception of things while you're high, it tends to induce apathy as well.
You could argue that alcohol does the same thing, but really... how hard is it to go to work stoned? Nobody would really know if you were stoned all the time because that's just who you are to them. It'd be pretty obvious if you were to go into work drunk all the time.
It's just easier to be high, it doesn't have debilitating physical effects. Psychologically though (in my experience) marijuana induces apathy, changes how you perceive others and the world around you, and in general you just aren't as sharp as you would normally be.
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/World-cannabis-laws.png/800px-World-cannabis-laws.png)
!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YqJjS.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5wqiG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fw4gE.jpg)
Will elaborate and keep arguing later tonight.
