 |
| |
|
|
rev
|
 |
Boulder, CO USA
Apr 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Yes. When you roll a joint or pack a bowl, you are smoking marijuana. When you have a store-bought cigarette like a Marlboro or Parliament, you are inhaling not only Tobacco and Nicotine, but tar, arsenic, and a host of other carcinagenic, poisonous things that blacken your lungs. |
Who grew the marijuana and how was it done? What chemicals were used in its production? What kind of soil was it grown in and what was in the soil?
When you smoke pot, you're smoking more than pot. Purely organic pot is nearly impossible to find, even where I live (every other store in Boulder is an organic alternative to the store next to it).
If there were government regulation and required labeling, at least you'd *know* what you were smoking. The same is a valid argument for the legalization of MDMA, which is commonly 'cut' (mixed) with cheaper, harder, and more dangerous drugs (methamphetamines are popular for this amongst MDMA producers). Not that our government has done this with cigarettes yet.
Plus, if people knew what they were smoking, maybe they'd be less likely to do so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rev
|
|
Boulder, CO USA
Apr 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
I've smoked pot daily for the past year and a half or so. To those who say it's not addictive or justify it as being only mentally addictive: you're wrong. Marijuana addiction IS real and the mental addiction is probably a lot stronger than you think it is.
It's an emotional, psychological addiction: you just get used to being stoned for at least part of the day, and that becomes the 'norm' -- if you follow a pattern every day, whether it's smoking pot or the route you drive to work or school, when you break that pattern it will feel unnatural. This addiction is also locked in by social patterns: if you smoke a lot of pot, you'll probably hang out mainly with people who also smoke a lot of pot, so if or when you want to quit, you'll still be in the same social circle with the same social pressures to smoke, whether these pressures are spoken or not.
That said, it's still no business of the government or society whether or not I smoke pot. If one wants to make his or her marijuana use a matter to the public (driving while stoned, seeking help for medical situations that result from marijuana use, etc.), the public has every right to say, "no, it was your own damn choice and we're not going to pay your medical bills" or "no, I don't want the driver next to me to be stoned", fine. Legalizing cannibus won't send a message to stoners that it's OK to drive stoned, especially if the penalties for doing so were made equal to the penalties for driving drunk, and the penalties for both increased substantially.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
not true
not even remotely true
pot smokers are often the WORST judge of the effects on their own system. users will often say how they have all the same abilities that they used to, when it's clear to those around them that they have become impaired.
compound that with denial and you have an extremly biased source |
Find another thread, square.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Strangelove -
Interesting hypothesis, pot should remain illegal so fewer people will resort to other crimes to make money? Then wouldn't it make sense to be very relaxed about enforcing the pot laws since strict punishment and harsh penalties will only drive some of these gangsters back to other criminal endeavors? |
Yes, but the risk involved in marketing marijuana keeps the price up, thus making its sale more lucrative than the other activities. Make the drugs cheap, removing the incentive for thugs to market it and they'll have to go back to activities inherently even more risky to the public-like carjacking. (This argument was a joke anyway.) quote:
According to your argument, homicide rates should have increased after alcohol prohibition was repealed since all those gangsters involved in the illicit alcohol market would have had to find other more dangerous and illegal ways to make money. That didn't happen, the homicide rate dropped 13 years in a row to about half the rate under alcohol prohibition and didn't go back up to prohibition levels until the modern drug war when, based on your argument, crime should have decreased as more criminals went back to drug dealing.
|
Those years also coincided with FDR's New Deal. Could it be that giving the masses some hope of relief had something to do with the drop in the crime rate? Also FDR rounded up more than a million unemployed young adults and sent them away from the cities to work on WPA and CCC projects. That certainly could have had an effect. quote:
You mean the people who have to ask me "where does it hurt" are more qualified than me to know if it hurts? I have a better idea, let's ask the people using the pot if it affords them relief, but the American Medical Association opposed the ban on pot back in 1937 and you simply ignored that fact the last time this issue was debated. |
We're not going to rehash your psychotic theory about some unsubstantiated allegation of a mass imprisonment of physicians used as extortion against the AMA again are we? quote:
Too bad it doesn't work that way, pot has ~5,000 years of proven utility and the politicians ignore that fact to keep it illegal. Tell us, Doc, does pot have medicinal properties (real utility)? Just a simple yes or no answer will do here... |
Hey, they used to believe in blood letting too. Feelign a little peaked? Let me get a leech and see what we can do about that!  I'll say that marijuana has no potential uses for which it has proven as effective as any currently existing medications, and that it's side effects and potential hazards further make its medical use undesireable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:32
|
|
monolith:
**** these 'rules' that people came up for debates... a real dialogue must always include ad hominems as it is a man's passions that must be changed and one's passions ultimately are more powerful than his logical mind.
i, however, have no reason to say much of anything in this thread as drug legalization is plain not going to happen in america so this is a non-issue. let's go and discuss abortion or affirmitive action or welfare reform people.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:32
|
|
quote:
i, however, have no reason to say much of anything in this thread as drug legalization is plain not going to happen in america so this is a non-issue. |
Hmmmm maybe you didn't notice but the thread starter (i,e me) is from New Zealand, where this is a reasonably alive issue. If you ain't got much to say then why did you post in here in the first place?
quote:
Yeah, man. Dope brings people from all walks of life together. Gay, straight, republican, democract, black, white, everyone blazes |
Ain't that the truth 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Doesn't matter, Sava. Speer is right, drugs won't be legalized here. Medical marijuana is as far as it's gonna get, but we'll be dead before there is any legalization. |
Hey, you never know. The fact that alcohol is legal, which isn't really that much different from weed when you think about it, means that any other drug could concievably become legal as well. And since MJ is one of the least potent drugs, I'd say its as good a candidate as any.
Although I agree, probably not in our lifetime unless something drastic happens. But I could see them decriminalizing it though, maybe.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Strangelove - quote:
Yes, but the risk involved in marketing marijuana keeps the price up, thus making its sale more lucrative than the other activities. Make the drugs cheap, removing the incentive for thugs to market it and they'll have to go back to activities inherently even more risky to the public-like carjacking. (This argument was a joke anyway.) |
Couldn't be too funny if you're trying to defend it  The fact is many, perhaps most people involved in the illicit pot trade are not criminals and don't see themselves in that light so they have no other illegal activities to return to if pot was legal.
quote:
Those years also coincided with FDR's New Deal. Could it be that giving the masses some hope of relief had something to do with the drop in the crime rate? |
That's a novel explanation. Care to explain why the murder rate began dropping the first year prohibition was repealed during a Depression that should have had the opposite effect as you claim?
quote:
Also FDR rounded up more than a million unemployed young adults and sent them away from the cities to work on WPA and CCC projects. That certainly could have had an effect. |
So why did homicide rates decline 13 years in a row and stabilise till the late 60's? Those make work programs lasted 3 maybe 4 years... Btw, why would work result in a decline in homicide rates? If that was true, homicide rates should have been highest during the Depression when a higher percentage of people were out of work and lowest when employment was at it's highest. But what we see are homicide rates at their highest point twice in the 20th century - both times during drug wars.
quote:
We're not going to rehash your psychotic theory about some unsubstantiated allegation of a mass imprisonment of physicians used as extortion against the AMA again are we? |
"The demonising and terrorising activities carried out by the FBN, which acted like a state within a state as far as public life was concerned, stifled at birth any inclination to resist the anti-drug policy of Anslinger and his bosses. An attempt by the medical profession to react against the FBN's totalitarianism ended in an ignominious compromise: the AMA requested that the FBN not be allowed to remove cannabis from its therapeutic arsenal after 1937, and Anslinger, being responsible for seeing that the Marihuana Tax Act was observed, responded with a stream of prosecutions of doctors. On the FBN's initiative, in 1939 alone 3,000 members of the AMA were prosecuted for illegally prescribing marihuana. The blackmail campaign had the desired effect and the medical profession reached a compromise with Anslinger: over the next ten years (1939-49), the FBN instigated legal proceedings against only three doctors, while the official organs of the medical profession uttered never a word on the subject of cannabis. (106)"
http://www.drugtext.org/library/boo...hapterthree.htm
quote:
Hey, they used to believe in blood letting too. Feelign a little peaked? Let me get a leech and see what we can do about that! |
Haven't you heard? Medical science has vindicated the use of leeches, the saliva leeches use to enhance blood flow contain anti-biotics that fight infections. But medical science has shown that pot has medicinal properties so we aren't dealing with a "medical" myth... Nice try...
quote:
I'll say that marijuana has no potential uses for which it has proven as effective as any currently existing medications, and that it's side effects and potential hazards further make its medical use undesireable. |
Well now, is that a yes or a no? Sounds like you're admitting pot has medicinal properties but have to couch your admission by pointing out that other medications are just as effective. What do you have to say to the politicians and medical bureaucrats who still claim pot has no medicinal properties? As for your opinion, obviously there are doctors who disagree with your assessment because they have advised their patients to use pot and that comes in a climate of fear induced by runaway bureaucrats and politicians who are breathing down the necks of doctors. Hell, it took a court ruling to allow doctors to even mention pot to their patients... Oh, pot has proven itself to be among the safest drugs around. Not even aspirin compares wrt safety...
Strangelove, are you an AIDS or cancer specialist? I mean, what are your credentials? I'd like to know if you even deal in areas where medicinal pot is relevant...
Last edited by Berzerker on 28-12-2003 at 17:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Whaleboy, it is false to presume marijuana leads to other drugs anyway.
Following your reasoning, if marijuana disappeared, then there would be no more new drug adepts.
Following your reasoning, we should forbid a speed of 60 mph on the highways because it leads to 80 mph.
What you need to understand is that each drug has a social value. Marijuana fits the bill of the mainstream, widely accepted, cheap and pleasant drug; while any other drug could have this role.
In fact, studies show that even cocaine and heroine are not much more dangerous. There is no such things as hard or soft drugs. This is pure propaganda BS.
|
Ummm, dude, I'm probably the most pro-cannabis person on this forum .
I dont know what its like in other countries, but here if you go to a dealer, he will likely introduce you to harder stuff, as is my experience. I used to get around that by growing my own, until I found the ignominious Eddy .
I'm not qualified to talk about cocaine or heroin, since I don't know much about them. I always assumed them to be more dangerous and addictive. Still, the libertarian argument would have them legalised, thus I think they should, but I'd never take heroin and cocaine is crappy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
monolith:
**** these 'rules' that people came up for debates... a real dialogue must always include ad hominems as it is a man's passions that must be changed and one's passions ultimately are more powerful than his logical mind.
|
A debate is not a recruitment drive, nor a conceptual war, it is merely a comparison of views, and views are constructed of logic, based on ones own emotional disposition. Since we cannot challenge anothers emotional disposition, we are left to analyse logic. Logic is the most powerful tool for dissecting views, of course as they are as strong as ever, with or without the emotion behind them that merely spawned them. My views will not change after I am dead, providing I leave some legacy, and one is not more correct simply because he speaks with a louder voice. I am trained in critical analysis, and I can assure you, ad hominems and strawmen have no place in a debate of logic. Anything else is a slanging match, which is wholly unproductive, and I dare say you do not endear anyone to your view if you are only capable of using emotions and flames.
quote:
i, however, have no reason to say much of anything in this thread as drug legalization is plain not going to happen in america so this is a non-issue. let's go and discuss abortion or affirmitive action or welfare reform people.
|
Not all of us are posting in America. It is a big issue here, and it is a realistic proposition to legalise cannabis here. Nonetheless, those in America may wish to change the status quo there, as unrealistic as that may be at the moment, and the only way to do that is keep debating the question, to keep the view in public and force it into the open. Certainly, the status quo won't change if they do nothing, indeed, it is supporters of the status quo that tell those who do not to "shut up and be realistic", as they know the threat they pose in the long run.
To those that support the legalisation of cannabis: Keep talking and keep posting 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-12-2003 06:12
|