Stronger Pot May Make Refer Madness Real, U.S. Fears

[/size]

[size=-1]I can't believe people are that dumb. It doesn't matter how potent the weed is. It just matters on how intoxicated the user is getting. That itself means that potent weed is good, and it's also better because you need less to get where you're going, which the article said.
[/size]

[size=-1]I can't believe NIDA is just a bunch of dumbasses and not evil fuckers like I thought.
[/size]

 

That is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever layed eyes upon.

 

I'm telling you man, the governement and authority is just going insane. That is such bullshit, there saying pot is possibly more dangerous than heroin and cocaine and crack and all that shit. That has to be the biggest load of shit i've ever heard. I hate people like that. There all just a bunch of communist pigs who want to control everyone, why can't they just fuck off and let us people do there own thing man.

 

I found this paragraph most disturbing. The thought of taking funds AWAY from cocaine and hard drugs (which are incredibly addictive and deadly) and transferring the funds to Marijuana (little to no addiction, no deaths) is inhumane.

This is yet another reason to get the dispicable administration out of office. I'm done with Bush jesus, that entire administration is just full of revolting people.

You know if this leaks out into the mainstream media and becomes a large issue that america is going to buying into this bullshit depending on how the media plays it.

 

I'm speechless...What the fuck...

 

Ahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Jesus christ NIDA is stupid as fuck... did they even consider when they are comparing this generations pot to that from the 60's that pot loses potency after being kept in warehouses for 4 decades??!! And if it is more potent, then perhaps people would smoke less to get the same amount of high thus reducing the danger of carcinogens from marijuana?

I think this is a last ditch effort. Pretty much everyone from our parents generation knows that pot isn't really the horror story presented to them when they were kids, and if they tell 'em its "super potent" now, maybe they can justify prohibition a little longer.

 

All I wanna know is: where the fuck is this super-potent bud? I've not yet been blessed with such high percentages of THC...

 

Kind Bud is pretty okay, but if you really want something magical, find some British Columbian.

 

Another example of hot headed teenagers who think they know everything, bitching about something they don't like. Try actually reading teh study. The point he is making is that using pot at such early ages may be dangerous to important brain development stages. That makes a lot of sense (which you will see when you actually reach high school psychology classes). I am all for legalization of the herb, but not for children and YES YOU ARE CHILDREN!!!!!!


Where are all of the adults on this board who can actually think beyond today's fix and actually help support the arguments for legalization based on scientific facts instead of just blasting Bush and screaming "It's not fair!" everytime someone says something negative about the weed?

You guys are pathetic. God help us when you take over this country. It almost makes me want to stop smoking just so I am not associated with your rhetorical bullshit. Oh yeah...I forgot...I knew everything when I was fifteen too. Amazing hoiw puberty and all those raging hormones give you the answers to life in just a few years and how all of the people before you must have been idiots who just didn't get it or who were corrupted by the government. sheesh!

 

dumb govtment bastards!!

 

Hey, hold on there, I'm aware that marijuana shouldn't be used at some ages, but I'm not angry at this article because it might be proposing that kids shouldn't smoke weed. I just think it's incredibly funny how NIDA are making themselves look stupider claiming that the potency of pot makes a difference at all.

Getting stoned is getting stoned. If the weed is more potent, that just means less is required. Every effect on the mind is the same, and there still might be adverse affects if the mind isn't matured. It's funny to me that at the same time they try to convince us that today's marijuana isn't harmless, they simultaneously say that the marijauan of the 60's is. I'm not sure why, but that just struck a chord with me.

You should also lighten up, man. We're not all missing the point, and we're not all just getting angry at things we think are unfair. Besides, most of the 15 year-olds here that are getting angry and just getting angry at Bush really can't do anything else. Have you thought about that? It's not like we can all write our respective representitives at the age of 15 and tell them why we think marijuana should be legalized.

Oh, and also, just to clarify, I haven't read the actual study done by NIDA. Do you have a link to it? The only things I've read of it were from this article, and a piece of text on Erowid scrutinizing it for disregarding demographic area.

 

Riffy... sweety... maybe if you weren't so toasted when you typed this it wouldn't make you come off as so condescending... I dunno, but spare me the ephebiphobia. I haven't smoked in 4 months, and I don't feel like I'm going to smoke again for a while, but that doesn't mean I support a prohibitionist policy. If you feel your age has brought an extra measure of wisdom to the debate, why don't you try sharing it, rather then verbally bashing some kids trying to have a discussion.

 

Obvious media hype being used to undermine legal medicinal use. The GOV. is trying to take away medical use right now. They don't consider our votes in california as legitimate. After all you can buy elections these days. What is a vote? Media madness is more like it.

 

I would gladly offer intelligent debate if I could get through just one thread without hearing the same old Bush bashing, anarchist BS from the mouths of babes who have no idea what they are promoting. I will say again. I support legalization but NOT for people under 21 (or maybe 18). There are reasons for age limits, whether these posters believe it or not. I think it is disgusting that the majority of posts about weed come from people who are 13-16 years old. My daughter is ten and God forbid she start smoking in the next three years. Live a little, learn a little, then decide if these vices are good for you. Anyone who is honest will admit that they have missed many opportunities because they were so caught up in rebelling against the establishment that they failed to think about life in the future.

I take no offense at your comments to me. In fact I don't really care if anyone on this board even agrees with me. Smoke up.

 

They are retarted

 

wow that was the stupidest this i have read all day........ ​

WATCH OUT FOR POT-ZILLA AHHHHHHHHHHH!!​

 

Ahhh look The Goverment is trying to Scare Us Again

 

I don't agree with that but pot is getting stronger. In the 60s it was all grown outside, but today we use special lights and force it to flower un naturally. I mean we have man-made strains. Skunk wasn't around in the 80s, it's relatively new. But your right it doesn't matter how strong it is, you can mess yourself and need treatmeant from smoking ditch weed. And saying it is more dangerous than crack or heroin is fucking stupid.

 

Things like this make me think that their a secret conspiracy involving pot, like pot MAKES you question what is around you, making people question the government and question society, as opposed to drugs like heroin and coke that just fuck you up and eventually kill you. And only the government knows it, so they launch a secret campaign against pot to stop peole from questioning their policies....Hey, it could be true...

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

In relation to the 'strength' of the weed you buy, surely this is a superb reason for any government around the world to actually legalise it, thus allowing them to actively control what is being sold to public, in respect of what strains should be sold and also what the THC level would be. This would also enable them to much more accurately tab how many people are smoking weed and how much they are smoking. Obviously there would always be a black market for weed, but as a rule most folk would be happy to know that they're getting a fair smoke for a fair price. This would also enable ordinarily law abiding citizens to purchase weed without having to come into contact with unscrupulous dealers, thus eradicating the government argument (certainly in the uk) that people will have hard drugs 'pushed' on to them by dealers. For example, if you had, say, a 16y/o son/daughter who you knew sooner or later would be sampling weed, would you rather him/her go to a licensed retail outlet, or to potentially some dodgy smack den in a rough arse part of town?


It would also mean i.d would be needed to show you were 18 (or whatever age was deemed ok by law). I think under 18s should probably be careful not to smoke too much (like every day at night & all weekend!) because there no doubt that excessive use can cause a dependency so it needs to be used responsibily.

I'll leave it there cos i'm beginning to feel like my dad lecturing me when I was 18, but did I listen, course not I now enjoy a good session whenever I'm down at his house. He likes to cockily remind me that he has 'smoked dope for 35 years' before I smoke him under the table and into oblivion!