<!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Dec 31 2003, 04:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Dec 31 2003, 04:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->edit: CWAG - Drug possession isn't anywhere comperable to rape. You know that. Trying to get people all worked up by throwing in the image of a serious crime isn't helping us find a good answer. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So, breathing in a toxin to reach an alternate state of consciousness isn't <i>serious</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're doing it again. The key word was <i>crime</i>, not serious. Marriage is serious, but people don't get put in jail for that. So is smoking MJ a crime? It's pretty hard to support it being so.
Torak's website is pretty interesting, but there's some bunk thrown in there: #2 - "According to the UN's estimate, 141 million people around the world use marijuana. This represents about 2.5 percent of the world population."
That's just a silly stat to use. If you took out all the babies, children, incapacitated, incarcerated, people who have no way of acquiring it, people who prefer to smoke something harder instead, and those who otherwise can't use marijuana for whatever other reasons, then the numbers might actually mean something.
This one here kinda surprised me - #16 - "Commissioned by President Nixon in 1972, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that "Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it. This judgment is based on prevalent use patterns, on behavior exhibited by the vast majority of users and on our interpretations of existing medical and scientific data. This position also is consistent with the estimate by law enforcement personnel that the elimination of use is unattainable.""
On Canada: "TORONTO, Dec. 23 -- Canada's Supreme Court endorsed the enforcement of criminal penalties for smoking marijuana on Tuesday, but left open the possibility that Parliament could still decriminalize casual use of the drug at a later time." There was a 6-3 decision that Canadian citizens do not have a standing consititutional right to smoke marijuana, but that has nothing to do with decriminalization, only legalization. They are still endeavoring to heavily reduce punishments for MJ possession. <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25964-2003Dec23.html' target='_blank'>(the article)</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--MMZ>Torak+Dec 31 2003, 10:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MMZ>Torak @ Dec 31 2003, 10:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> With a thank you to Greypaws I will post this link:
This should debunk alot of what has been said here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There is no mental harm, yet it mentions nothing about physical harm of Mary Jane; what a baised reporting of the 'facts'.
On the other hand, I did like how that site stated that regions that merely slapped out a fine for smoking kept down the illegal MJ use without harsh punishments.
<!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Dec 30 2003, 08:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Dec 30 2003, 08:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For #6- Sure having stronger clothes etc might be nice when everyones walking around half-baked. Like someone else said, Americans can't even moderate how much we eat, let alone give them a potentially hazardous narcotic? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
nar·cot·ic (när-ktk) n.
1. An addictive drug, such as opium, that reduces pain, alters mood and behavior, and usually induces sleep or stupor. Natural and synthetic narcotics are used in medicine to control pain.
pot is not a narcotic. nevertheless, it's much easier for people to want to alter their bodies with drugs when they don't have to take drugs to stay well.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 30 2003, 04:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 30 2003, 04:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You can't make the act of suffocating yourself to feel happy healthy. Ever. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> well said, makes one think.
<!--QuoteBegin--gorge_princess+Jan 2 2004, 06:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (gorge_princess @ Jan 2 2004, 06:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 30 2003, 04:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 30 2003, 04:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You can't make the act of suffocating yourself to feel happy healthy. Ever. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> well said, makes one think.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It did make me think. Made me think of that small group of people who actually get off on asphyxiation while they have sex. *shudders*
Sorry but people who worry about the health risks of everything are squares, keeners, loosers and downers. You're not even experiencing life you're just drulling through it teenangsting it up day in and day out. Trying to rain on everyone elses parade because misery loves company.
Get some experience with something before you go spouting off "facts" that you read somewhere. Also don't give me that "Oh I've tried it once/twice/thrice" because that's not experience.
I went flyfishing once. Does this make me an experienced flyfisher? Should I rant about how a nymph works better than a dry fly for catching salmon but only if you're in Seattle? No because I have very little real world experience with fly fishing. But I read the magazines and have mannaged to rummage up some data I found somewhere, that must make my statements valid. No?
Legalization = (hypothetically of course)
Less people in jail for pot related crimes which translates into less cost to upkeep prisons, and more room for offenders who commit serious crimes. Dorito stocks going through the roof <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> A new business with a new job market. Harder for youth to get if it were regulated like alchohol and tobacco. Kids wouldn't have such an easy time obtaining it. Although I know there are ways for younger kids to get booze it's still not an easy task.
There are more but it's 6 am and I'm tired as ****.
One more thing though!
Stop calling everyone who smokes pot a pothead or a stoner. If someone wants to have a beer when they get home from work do you call them a drunk or an alchoholic?
And to everyone who smokes: Stop wearing your "stoner 4 life" shirts and try to represent with some dignity.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Jan 2 2004, 01:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jan 2 2004, 01:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--MMZ>Torak+Dec 31 2003, 10:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MMZ>Torak @ Dec 31 2003, 10:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> With a thank you to Greypaws I will post this link:
This should debunk alot of what has been said here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is no mental harm, yet it mentions nothing about physical harm of Mary Jane; what a baised reporting of the 'facts'. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dangit! Not reporting that something is false doesn't automatically make it true, nor does it make the source biased! You can't base a conclusion like that on lack of evidence.
Smoking marijuana is bad for you, but you don't have to smoke it, and I would highly recommend ingesting it if you're going to use it at all. There are plenty of short-term studies on ingesting it (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"[15].), but there haven't been any real long term studies (following the same people over the course of 20+ years). Again, no studies does not inherantly mean that it is bad for you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other hand, I did like how that site stated that regions that merely slapped out a fine for smoking kept down the illegal MJ use without harsh punishments.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's usually what we're talking about when we bash the drug war.
Here's one to add to Orange's statements: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume" [15].
And to play devil's advocate here, people sprayed asbestos all over the insides of buildings for a century before they figured out the longterm effects. Ephedra just got banned a few days ago after a decade of scientists saying it was completely safe. Putting marijuana in your body may not be bad for you at all - how exactly is it good for you if you're a normal healthy person already?
PS: And any of the aforementioned studies which showed that pot had no longterm affects on cognition and motivation never met anyone in my college dorm wing. A study that comes up with such a ridiculous statistic throws many of the others into doubt... but that's just me playing devil's advocate.
Uhh.. I might have read something different from you MonsE but those studies did say that pot did diminish motivation, and long term pot users did perform worse on memory tests (not cognitive ones though). I only put that link up for the stats on how much the war on drugs costs, and the fact that bureaucrats are making so much money from this so called war that pot will never be legal. It is a biased site, because the person sponsoring it is pro pot.
The manipulation of statistics is at times a fine art, I recently ran across a factoid that said second had smoke has actually never been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer. The WHO and various other organizations based all their findings on one study, which was manipulated to make their case, some high court in the US issued a statement saying that what they did was irresponsible, but no one caught on. Isn't it funny how the same year tobacco companies stopped contributing money to certain government organizations a **** storm broke. Anyhow that’s a whole other thread <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Jan 2 2004, 05:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Jan 2 2004, 05:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Uhh.. I might have read something different from you MonsE but those studies did say that pot did diminish motivation, and long term pot users did perform worse on memory tests (not cognitive ones though). I only put that link up for the stats on how much the war on drugs costs, and the fact that bureaucrats are making so much money from this so called war that pot will never be legal. It is a biased site, because the person sponsoring it is pro pot. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll admit that I started to skim after a few pages of the same endless 'pot r w1n!' scientific stats. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> I retract my statement re: memory and motivation. And I'll be damned if I'd ever give up two of my greatest abilities (to be self-motivated and remember things better than most people), in order to gain a mild high.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The manipulation of statistics is at times a fine art, I recently ran across a factoid that said second had smoke has actually never been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer. The WHO and various other organizations based all their findings on one study, which was manipulated to make their case, some high court in the US issued a statement saying that what they did was irresponsible, but no one caught on. Isn't it funny how the same year tobacco companies stopped contributing money to certain government organizations a **** storm broke. Anyhow that?s a whole other thread <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed it is <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> . The older you all get, the more amused and irritated you will be by the endless progressions of scientific announcements that 'such and such is GREAT for you... no wait, such and such is TERRIBLE for you... no wait, such and such is GREAT for you... no wait..." .
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
I think this thread is coming to a conclusion, atleast for me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> While Ma-pot isnt very healthy itself I would say it doesnt justify making it illegal - The law have only come to live because of ignorance and prejudices
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The older you all get, the more amused and irritated you will be by the endless progressions of scientific announcements that 'such and such is GREAT for you... no wait, such and such is TERRIBLE for you... no wait, such and such is GREAT for you... no wait..." .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Scepticism for you <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Epidemic+Jan 2 2004, 05:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Jan 2 2004, 05:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think this thread is coming to a conclusion, atleast for me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> While Ma-pot isnt very healthy itself I would say it doesnt justify making it illegal - The law have only come to live because of ignorance and prejudices
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The older you all get, the more amused and irritated you will be by the endless progressions of scientific announcements that 'such and such is GREAT for you... no wait, such and such is TERRIBLE for you... no wait, such and such is GREAT for you... no wait..." .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Scepticism for you <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He's not being a skeptic per se, but more or less jaded with life.
I've already reached a conclusion.
MJ is bad, simply because it can and will wreck your life. It most certainly does have negative side effects on your body, and it costs a lot of money. I don't buy it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Jan 3 2004, 05:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jan 3 2004, 05:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> MJ is bad, simply because it can and will wreck your life. It most certainly does have negative side effects on your body, and it costs a lot of money. I don't buy it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You can wreck your life with alcohol and tobacco just as well. Or by driving a bicycle without helmet or a car without seatbelt. Or by not using life-jacket in boat. Or by eating unhealthy food. The possibilities are endless, we might as well allow another way to ruin our lives. People like options after all <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Jan 2 2004, 04:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Jan 2 2004, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Uhh.. I might have read something different from you MonsE but those studies did say that pot did diminish motivation.. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Buh? Quite the opposite, it called the idea bunk.
"Some claim that cannabis use leads to "adult amotivation." The World Health Organization report addresses the issue and states, "it is doubtful that cannabis use produces a well defined amotivational syndrome." The report also notes that the value of studies which support the "adult amotivation" theory are "limited by their small sample sizes" and lack of representative social/cultural groups." [21]
Man, I really like that facts page. This is much easier than tracking down the primary sources.
Okay, yes, that's what we'd expect from a sedative. The same is true of beer. I'm pretty sure the "syndrome" is when the sedative effects last longer than the time right after usage.
I would like to just again point out that smoking marijuana is a victimless crime. It doesn't throw you into violence such as other drugs, or for the most part it doesn't. Go ahead, say if it throws even one person into a violent frenzy that its bad, but the same can be said for many OTC drugs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The older you all get, the more amused and irritated you will be by the endless progressions of scientific announcements that 'such and such is GREAT for you... no wait, such and such is TERRIBLE for you... no wait, such and such is GREAT for you... no wait..." .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the venerable Lewis Black said it best when he ranted... "The only thing we've come up with to deal with the fact that we have on O-Zone layer is sunblock, and I don't trust that s*** at all! Why would you? The people who are telling us about sunblock are the same people who were telling me when I was a kid that eggs were good so I ate A LOT of eggs... Ten years later they said they were bad (BUT WHAT ABOUT THE EGGS!?) So I stopped eating eggs, then 10 years later they said they were good again. So I ate TWICE as many eggs then they said they were bad (Oh now I'm REALLY F****!) They're good, they're bad, they're good, they're bad, It's breakfast, I GOTTA EAT!"
Why don't we keep marijuana illegal because it funds Columbian druglords / cartels? I mean...if it's so practical and healthy for your body, why not keep it illegal for the funding of other more harmful drugs factor?
<!--QuoteBegin--Crisqo+Jan 5 2004, 11:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Jan 5 2004, 11:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why don't we keep marijuana illegal because it funds Columbian druglords / cartels? I mean...if it's so practical and healthy for your body, why not keep it illegal for the funding of other more harmful drugs factor? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You mean we should make it legal so that the guys who grow it in their basement, the government, or any but drug lords and cartels can profit, right?
I can't even follow the second part of that. Little help?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Crisqo+Jan 5 2004, 11:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Jan 5 2004, 11:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why don't we keep marijuana illegal because it funds Columbian druglords / cartels? I mean...if it's so practical and healthy for your body, why not keep it illegal for the funding of other more harmful drugs factor? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's actually one of the best arguments for legalizing it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Crisqo+Jan 5 2004, 11:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Jan 5 2004, 11:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The older you all get, the more amused and irritated you will be by the endless progressions of scientific announcements that 'such and such is GREAT for you... no wait, such and such is TERRIBLE for you... no wait, such and such is GREAT for you... no wait..." .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the venerable Lewis Black said it best when he ranted... "The only thing we've come up with to deal with the fact that we have on O-Zone layer is sunblock, and I don't trust that s*** at all! Why would you? The people who are telling us about sunblock are the same people who were telling me when I was a kid that eggs were good so I ate A LOT of eggs... Ten years later they said they were bad (BUT WHAT ABOUT THE EGGS!?) So I stopped eating eggs, then 10 years later they said they were good again. So I ate TWICE as many eggs then they said they were bad (Oh now I'm REALLY F****!) They're good, they're bad, they're good, they're bad, It's breakfast, I GOTTA EAT!"
Why don't we keep marijuana illegal because it funds Columbian druglords / cartels? I mean...if it's so practical and healthy for your body, why not keep it illegal for the funding of other more harmful drugs factor? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> At least fifty percent of marijuana is grown in the states.
Not only that, but if it was legalized, the government could control the trade, therefore making funding for those cartels go down significantly.
Well if it was legal then anyone could just go to the pharmacy and pick up some? I don't know about you, but I don't want stoners running around the place all the time looking for some brownies or a bag of potato chips. I'm also fairly sure that if you're high, you lose your ability to drive...like alcohol. My friend claims, while high, drives on the road in an "S" pattern and also drives really slow because 25 mph feels like it is REALLY fast.
So, if it is legalized, it becomes readily available. This means more potheads lurking about, and that means more potentially dangerous situations...Which is bad.
I don't mind pot. I don't think it's all that though. It does seem harmless. However the negative effects of course must be examined. Alcohol seemingly causes no long term problems provided you do not drink excessively. I would prefer the same to be true for marijuana before I would support legalization.
Chronic should be legalized. The points made by many people here make this apparent; the real thing would be regulation. Age limits? Liscence aquisition? Where viable to use?
Age limit of 18, liscenses should be EXTREMELY difficult to get, and it should be restricted to the privacy of ones home.
<!--QuoteBegin--Crisqo+Jan 6 2004, 03:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Jan 6 2004, 03:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well if it was legal then anyone could just go to the pharmacy and pick up some? I don't know about you, but I don't want stoners running around the place all the time looking for some brownies or a bag of potato chips. I'm also fairly sure that if you're high, you lose your ability to drive...like alcohol. My friend claims, while high, drives on the road in an "S" pattern and also drives really slow because 25 mph feels like it is REALLY fast.
So, if it is legalized, it becomes readily available. This means more potheads lurking about, and that means more potentially dangerous situations...Which is bad. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> They sell beer at the pharmacy (I'm not kidding). We've been over this before: use isn't the same as abuse, nor does using something force you to make dumb decisions (they're usually made beforehand, like failing to set yourself up with a designated driver). Driving intoxicated is illegal no matter what you are intoxicated with. You will still get canned for driving under the influence of too much Nyquil or Dayquil.
Some of your "pothead" stereotypes are also pretty off-base.
Stereotypes? I was under the impression that the munchies was a common side effect from smoking marijuana....That and the truth.org campaign had those commercials about doing it slows down reaction times, thought process, and a few other things I can't think of.
<!--QuoteBegin--Crisqo+Jan 6 2004, 03:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Jan 6 2004, 03:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't know about you, but I don't want stoners running around the place all the time looking for some brownies or a bag of potato chips... My friend claims, while high, drives on the road in an "S" pattern and also drives really slow because 25 mph feels like it is REALLY fast.
...more potheads lurking about, and that means more potentially dangerous situations...Which is bad. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You are strongly implying that weed makes you run around and cause trouble. If anything, MJ's sedative nature would make you more inclined to just chill at home with your buddies.
Much like with alcohol, the vast majority of weed users aren't represented by a few bad eggs that can't use it responsibly. If you're pretty dumb (or violent, or depressed, or whatever imbalance) to start with, inebriating yourself isn't going to help any.
As for "Truth," it should be taken with the same grain of salt that any media message should be. They take some underly facts, and stretch them as far as they'll hold for the shock value. Getting people riled up and talking about the issue is one of their goals. You don't exactly get people talking by giving them the whole answer, do you?
I imagine the legalization of this would be like when the government lowered the drinking age to 18. Those aforementioned idiots would come out of the woodworks and ruin it for all of you "good potheads." Why not just avoid it altogether?
Comments
So, breathing in a toxin to reach an alternate state of consciousness isn't <i>serious</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're doing it again. The key word was <i>crime</i>, not serious. Marriage is serious, but people don't get put in jail for that. So is smoking MJ a crime? It's pretty hard to support it being so.
Torak's website is pretty interesting, but there's some bunk thrown in there: #2 - "According to the UN's estimate, 141 million people around the world use marijuana. This represents about 2.5 percent of the world population."
That's just a silly stat to use. If you took out all the babies, children, incapacitated, incarcerated, people who have no way of acquiring it, people who prefer to smoke something harder instead, and those who otherwise can't use marijuana for whatever other reasons, then the numbers might actually mean something.
This one here kinda surprised me - #16 - "Commissioned by President Nixon in 1972, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that "Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it. This judgment is based on prevalent use patterns, on behavior exhibited by the vast majority of users and on our interpretations of existing medical and scientific data. This position also is consistent with the estimate by law enforcement personnel that the elimination of use is unattainable.""
On Canada: "TORONTO, Dec. 23 -- Canada's Supreme Court endorsed the enforcement of criminal penalties for smoking marijuana on Tuesday, but left open the possibility that Parliament could still decriminalize casual use of the drug at a later time." There was a 6-3 decision that Canadian citizens do not have a standing consititutional right to smoke marijuana, but that has nothing to do with decriminalization, only legalization. They are still endeavoring to heavily reduce punishments for MJ possession. <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25964-2003Dec23.html' target='_blank'>(the article)</a>
edit: small clarification
<a href='http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm' target='_blank'>Marijuana FACTS</a>
This should debunk alot of what has been said here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no mental harm, yet it mentions nothing about physical harm of Mary Jane; what a baised reporting of the 'facts'.
On the other hand, I did like how that site stated that regions that merely slapped out a fine for smoking kept down the illegal MJ use without harsh punishments.
For #6- Sure having stronger clothes etc might be nice when everyones walking around half-baked. Like someone else said, Americans can't even moderate how much we eat, let alone give them a potentially hazardous narcotic?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
nar·cot·ic (när-ktk) n.
1. An addictive drug, such as opium, that reduces pain, alters mood and behavior, and usually induces sleep or stupor. Natural and synthetic narcotics are used in medicine to control pain.
pot is not a narcotic. nevertheless, it's much easier for people to want to alter their bodies with drugs when they don't have to take drugs to stay well.
well said, makes one think.
well said, makes one think.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It did make me think. Made me think of that small group of people who actually get off on asphyxiation while they have sex. *shudders*
Sorry but people who worry about the health risks of everything are squares, keeners, loosers and downers. You're not even experiencing life you're just drulling through it teenangsting it up day in and day out. Trying to rain on everyone elses parade because misery loves company.
Get some experience with something before you go spouting off "facts" that you read somewhere. Also don't give me that "Oh I've tried it once/twice/thrice" because that's not experience.
I went flyfishing once. Does this make me an experienced flyfisher? Should I rant about how a nymph works better than a dry fly for catching salmon but only if you're in Seattle? No because I have very little real world experience with fly fishing. But I read the magazines and have mannaged to rummage up some data I found somewhere, that must make my statements valid. No?
Legalization = (hypothetically of course)
Less people in jail for pot related crimes which translates into less cost to upkeep prisons, and more room for offenders who commit serious crimes.
Dorito stocks going through the roof <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
A new business with a new job market.
Harder for youth to get if it were regulated like alchohol and tobacco. Kids wouldn't have such an easy time obtaining it. Although I know there are ways for younger kids to get booze it's still not an easy task.
There are more but it's 6 am and I'm tired as ****.
One more thing though!
Stop calling everyone who smokes pot a pothead or a stoner. If someone wants to have a beer when they get home from work do you call them a drunk or an alchoholic?
And to everyone who smokes: Stop wearing your "stoner 4 life" shirts and try to represent with some dignity.
<a href='http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm' target='_blank'>Marijuana FACTS</a>
This should debunk alot of what has been said here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no mental harm, yet it mentions nothing about physical harm of Mary Jane; what a baised reporting of the 'facts'.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dangit! Not reporting that something is false doesn't automatically make it true, nor does it make the source biased! You can't base a conclusion like that on lack of evidence.
Smoking marijuana is bad for you, but you don't have to smoke it, and I would highly recommend ingesting it if you're going to use it at all. There are plenty of short-term studies on ingesting it (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"[15].), but there haven't been any real long term studies (following the same people over the course of 20+ years). Again, no studies does not inherantly mean that it is bad for you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other hand, I did like how that site stated that regions that merely slapped out a fine for smoking kept down the illegal MJ use without harsh punishments.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's usually what we're talking about when we bash the drug war.
Here's one to add to Orange's statements: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume" [15].
PS: And any of the aforementioned studies which showed that pot had no longterm affects on cognition and motivation never met anyone in my college dorm wing. A study that comes up with such a ridiculous statistic throws many of the others into doubt... but that's just me playing devil's advocate.
edit: clarified a bit.
The manipulation of statistics is at times a fine art, I recently ran across a factoid that said second had smoke has actually never been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer. The WHO and various other organizations based all their findings on one study, which was manipulated to make their case, some high court in the US issued a statement saying that what they did was irresponsible, but no one caught on. Isn't it funny how the same year tobacco companies stopped contributing money to certain government organizations a **** storm broke. Anyhow that’s a whole other thread <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'll admit that I started to skim after a few pages of the same endless 'pot r w1n!' scientific stats. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> I retract my statement re: memory and motivation. And I'll be damned if I'd ever give up two of my greatest abilities (to be self-motivated and remember things better than most people), in order to gain a mild high.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The manipulation of statistics is at times a fine art, I recently ran across a factoid that said second had smoke has actually never been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer. The WHO and various other organizations based all their findings on one study, which was manipulated to make their case, some high court in the US issued a statement saying that what they did was irresponsible, but no one caught on. Isn't it funny how the same year tobacco companies stopped contributing money to certain government organizations a **** storm broke. Anyhow that?s a whole other thread <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed it is <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> . The older you all get, the more amused and irritated you will be by the endless progressions of scientific announcements that 'such and such is GREAT for you... no wait, such and such is TERRIBLE for you... no wait, such and such is GREAT for you... no wait..." .
While Ma-pot isnt very healthy itself I would say it doesnt justify making it illegal - The law have only come to live because of ignorance and prejudices
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The older you all get, the more amused and irritated you will be by the endless progressions of scientific announcements that 'such and such is GREAT for you... no wait, such and such is TERRIBLE for you... no wait, such and such is GREAT for you... no wait..." .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Scepticism for you <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
While Ma-pot isnt very healthy itself I would say it doesnt justify making it illegal - The law have only come to live because of ignorance and prejudices
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The older you all get, the more amused and irritated you will be by the endless progressions of scientific announcements that 'such and such is GREAT for you... no wait, such and such is TERRIBLE for you... no wait, such and such is GREAT for you... no wait..." .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Scepticism for you <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's not being a skeptic per se, but more or less jaded with life.
I've already reached a conclusion.
MJ is bad, simply because it can and will wreck your life. It most certainly does have negative side effects on your body, and it costs a lot of money. I don't buy it.
You can wreck your life with alcohol and tobacco just as well. Or by driving a bicycle without helmet or a car without seatbelt. Or by not using life-jacket in boat. Or by eating unhealthy food. The possibilities are endless, we might as well allow another way to ruin our lives. People like options after all <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
"its not a want of drugs. Its a want of personal freedom, is what it is, ok? keep that in mind at all times"
Buh? Quite the opposite, it called the idea bunk.
"Some claim that cannabis use leads to "adult amotivation." The World Health Organization report addresses the issue and states, "it is doubtful that cannabis use produces a well defined amotivational syndrome." The report also notes that the value of studies which support the "adult amotivation" theory are "limited by their small sample sizes" and lack of representative social/cultural groups." [21]
Man, I really like that facts page. This is much easier than tracking down the primary sources.
I think the venerable Lewis Black said it best when he ranted... "The only thing we've come up with to deal with the fact that we have on O-Zone layer is sunblock, and I don't trust that s*** at all! Why would you? The people who are telling us about sunblock are the same people who were telling me when I was a kid that eggs were good so I ate A LOT of eggs... Ten years later they said they were bad (BUT WHAT ABOUT THE EGGS!?) So I stopped eating eggs, then 10 years later they said they were good again. So I ate TWICE as many eggs then they said they were bad (Oh now I'm REALLY F****!) They're good, they're bad, they're good, they're bad, It's breakfast, I GOTTA EAT!"
Why don't we keep marijuana illegal because it funds Columbian druglords / cartels? I mean...if it's so practical and healthy for your body, why not keep it illegal for the funding of other more harmful drugs factor?
You mean we should make it legal so that the guys who grow it in their basement, the government, or any but drug lords and cartels can profit, right?
I can't even follow the second part of that. Little help?
That's actually one of the best arguments for legalizing it.
I think the venerable Lewis Black said it best when he ranted... "The only thing we've come up with to deal with the fact that we have on O-Zone layer is sunblock, and I don't trust that s*** at all! Why would you? The people who are telling us about sunblock are the same people who were telling me when I was a kid that eggs were good so I ate A LOT of eggs... Ten years later they said they were bad (BUT WHAT ABOUT THE EGGS!?) So I stopped eating eggs, then 10 years later they said they were good again. So I ate TWICE as many eggs then they said they were bad (Oh now I'm REALLY F****!) They're good, they're bad, they're good, they're bad, It's breakfast, I GOTTA EAT!"
Why don't we keep marijuana illegal because it funds Columbian druglords / cartels? I mean...if it's so practical and healthy for your body, why not keep it illegal for the funding of other more harmful drugs factor? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least fifty percent of marijuana is grown in the states.
Not only that, but if it was legalized, the government could control the trade, therefore making funding for those cartels go down significantly.
So, if it is legalized, it becomes readily available. This means more potheads lurking about, and that means more potentially dangerous situations...Which is bad.
Age limit of 18, liscenses should be EXTREMELY difficult to get, and it should be restricted to the privacy of ones home.
So, if it is legalized, it becomes readily available. This means more potheads lurking about, and that means more potentially dangerous situations...Which is bad. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
They sell beer at the pharmacy (I'm not kidding). We've been over this before: use isn't the same as abuse, nor does using something force you to make dumb decisions (they're usually made beforehand, like failing to set yourself up with a designated driver). Driving intoxicated is illegal no matter what you are intoxicated with. You will still get canned for driving under the influence of too much Nyquil or Dayquil.
Some of your "pothead" stereotypes are also pretty off-base.
...more potheads lurking about, and that means more potentially dangerous situations...Which is bad. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are strongly implying that weed makes you run around and cause trouble. If anything, MJ's sedative nature would make you more inclined to just chill at home with your buddies.
Much like with alcohol, the vast majority of weed users aren't represented by a few bad eggs that can't use it responsibly. If you're pretty dumb (or violent, or depressed, or whatever imbalance) to start with, inebriating yourself isn't going to help any.
As for "Truth," it should be taken with the same grain of salt that any media message should be. They take some underly facts, and stretch them as far as they'll hold for the shock value. Getting people riled up and talking about the issue is one of their goals. You don't exactly get people talking by giving them the whole answer, do you?