do u smoke marijuana? if not this is the thread for u, if so u might learn something

No, I don't have to. Not everyone is a passifist stoner hippy. Nor do they have to be.

 

Than you don't deserve to be taken seriously.

 

you can regulate that just as well as you can regulate the same kind of things happening with alcohol. where is your fear of pilots getting drunk off their face then going for a spin with two hundred passengers? nowhere, because it is not logical. most people who are intelligent enough to get a job that involves a responsibility for other people's safety and well-being are going to use common sense with marijuana, just as they do today with alcohol.

crack and marijuana are two different things entirely. using it as a comparison in this sense is laughable, and reveals how little knowledge you have on a subject on which you are so opinionated.

 

Whatever excuse makes you feel better for running away after your beliefs are challenged.

 

i'll never understand why pot isn't legal. it doesn't make any sense to me. it's bizarre. it's not like all of us who don't smoke it are suddenly gonna become stoners or whatever. it doesn't seem to agree with ANYONE in my family. we've ALL tried it, including my parents. none of us did well. we're alcoholics. so why is my incredibly addictive drug legal but pot isn't? you can regulate people driving stoned the same way you regulate people driving drunk. and hell, have you ever seen a buncha stoners rob a bank or beat their spouses? uh...no. unless it was laced or something. but that wouldn't be a problem if it was regulated, right?

my uncle always grew his own. the local cops ignored it, he was a veteran, rural illinois is like that, and he's the sweetest man ever. he and his wife adopted a little girl with some severe physical disabilities, and once she was full grown, he'd let her have some. it cured a lot of her pain from the arthritis and MS. so, what the hell? are the liquor producers the ones keeping it from being legalized?

 

"you can regulate people driving stoned the same way you regulate people driving drunk"

Looking at all the fatalities from drunk driving each year, and the amount of DUI's giving out each each day, doesn't look like we're doing that good of a job.

 

yeah, and a good deal of them are probably stoned anyway. what's the difference?

 

so ur saying alcohol should be made illegal as well as pot right? and if ur not saying that ur not really helping ur argument by comparing other drugs to pot. pot is different than everything. and even if pot is bad for u then we can make it illegal to smoke and legal to be produced as a crop and sold for medicinal reasons. and ur wrong when u say that marijuana has more toxins than tobacco. THC is not a toxin or else our body would expel it from our system. the founding fathers smoked pot and look at how intelligent they were. you dont smoke pot and i doubt that u could come up with an organized govt of checks and balances that works better than anything previosly thought up by man

 

1) Marijuana smoke contains more than just THC.
1a) THC is in fact a toxin and it is possible to overdose on it, though the amounts needed are high.
2) The body does expell THC from the system. That's how urine tests work.
2a) By your logic, water is a toxin because the body expells it all day long.
3) I have yet to see solid textbook evidence, and not some silly webpage written by a dirty stoner hippy, proving that the founding fathers SMOKED "pot". They cultivated and used hemp, yes. But that is no surprise as hemp has been used for millenia.
3a) I doubt the Constitution or the Delcaration of Independence was written while the founding fathers were drunk or stoned.
4) I'm not comparing pot to any drug. I'm talking about the faulty logic behind the whiney hippy statement "waa, tobacco is bad and it's legal so pot should be legal too!". That logic can be used to legalize pedophelia as well. Do you like pedophelia?

 

You keep mentioning how people will perform this, or perform that, or do this out in public. Smoking cannabis during a surgery, or smoking in public should both remain illegal. The same thing could be same about alcohol, and any other conscious altering substances. Your argument isn't an argument AGAINST legalization. It's an argument against irresponsible behavior, and you're absolutely right about how those things should not take place. If we should be outlawing anything, then it should be to outlaw irresponsible behavior, not the right to consume drugs in a safe environment, and in private.

Smoking pot is going to happen no matter what law we put in place. If anything, laws against the use of drugs only furthers its usage, or at least remains the same (prohibition?). Laws against drug use only makes its usage a taboo. In other words, it only makes it more 'hip', and 'cool' to do so. So this is really just a matter if letting the public know the TRUTH about these substances, because people always respond better to the truth rather than spread out lies.

When teens hear on TV that pot makes you lazy, or gives way to reefer madness, get older, searches for answers, and discovers the truth, they realize that the government has been lying to them. Which only furthers peoples suspicion of the government, and creates distrust; and ultimately leads to 'hippydom'.

"Oh yes. The infamous stoner cop-out. "Well, uh... *pffffffffff aaaahhhh* you're information is like.... inaccurate and inconclusive man... and like... *pfffffff aaaahhhhh* doesn't prove stuff."

Many prominent doctors will disagree. Yes, there is a lot of evidence supporting both 'sides' as well.




"Smoking marijuana DOES alter your perceptions. People who snort coke sometimes think they're invincible."

Yes, it absolutely does alter your perception, but so does a lot of prescribed medications (which cause at a lot of accidents that you speak of too, btw... should that also be illegal?) Coke and THC are pretty different from one another. Coke makes you feel invincible, weed just makes you very mellow and mostly harmless.

"Hey, I know people who have a few drinks and it helps them get laid! Alcohol is awesome man!"

Yes, alcohol helps people get laid, so? I really don't know where you are going with this.

"But seriously... being high doesn't make people stupid? Riiiiiiight. Maybe for a minority (read: minority) of people it does something to improve "creativity" or something. Or maybe it dumbs their brains up enough to focus on one single thing (read: single-minded). But for the rest I think it just makes them think they are smart.

And for the rest of people it just makes them fucking stupid."

Yes, but a dumb person will remain dumb while high, and a smart person will only remain intelligent. Yes, I guess it can make you feel smart, but it doesn't mean that its wrong.

The type of single-mindedness that you speak of isn't exactly what happens when you are high. I think you mean that you only look at one point of view concering anything that you are thinking of. But that really is just the nature of particular people to do so, I myself always looks to all angles, and THC only helps me to focus. The single-mindedness that I have is that my thoughts do not derail and go into tangents. I am able to more deeply focus on my ideas and to view all angles with more accuracy. But that's just me, and it isn't something that all people necessarily experience.


"No, my dad's fine. And he doesn't smoke. He knows someone who got hurt because of some other dumbass stoner hippy."

Oh ok. The same thing could be said about any alcoholic, or clumsy individual, or anyone on any mind altering drug prescribed to them by their doctors. I honestly don't know what to say about that one. Although, this really just touches up on people being irresponsible. Since some people are irresponsible alcoholics, should we re-initiate prohibition? See, people are going to get a hold to drugs no matter what. And like I said before, they can either maintain it illegally, or legally, and if legally, then about the same amount of people will use it (not everyone likes the effects of cannabis). And again, legality can kill the 'coolness factor'. You always have to look into how other nations are doing when they legalized all drugs. If their plan is failing, then it's because they aren't initiating any prevention programs and just allowing everyone to do whatever the heck they want without some order or spreading of information.

 

It's a plant

 

just like poison ivy!

 

2) The body does expell THC from the system. That's how urine tests work.
2a) By your logic, water is a toxin because the body expells it all day long.
you contradicted yourself. u said that THC is a toxin expelled from the body by urine and that b/c it is expelled by urine it is a toxin and then u said that by MY logic water is also a toxin. according to u everything expelled by urine must also be a toxin. my logic has nothing to do with urine at all. water is not a toxin b/c the body needs it to survive. and u did compare pot to alcohol and cocaine which are life altering by the effects. a poem i heard "johnny smoked a rock of crack and johnny had a heart attack, billy smoked an ounce of pot a little hugry is all he got"

 

1) Marijuana smoke contains more than just THC.
--Yes it does.
1a) THC is in fact a toxin and it is possible to overdose on it, though the amounts needed are high.
--Anything taken in excess, even water, can cause you to die. It is nearly impossible to die from a THC overdose. THC may be very mildly toxic, but just as toxic as the free radicals that are produced from digesting your daily meals. This really is a choice of individuals to make, not the government. Although, the physical damage is so minute that it isn't even worth mentioning.
2) The body does expell THC from the system. That's how urine tests work.
--Yup, it always goes into your hair.
2a) By your logic, water is a toxin because the body expells it all day long.
---Drink enough water, and you will die.
3) I have yet to see solid textbook evidence, and not some silly webpage written by a dirty stoner hippy, proving that the founding fathers SMOKED "pot". They cultivated and used hemp, yes. But that is no surprise as hemp has been used for millenia.
---Would you be surprised that they did? THC is a natural pain reliever, so it wouldn't be so shocking if they tried to find relief by smoking some weed (JFK smoked weed for his back pain, but that could be a myth).
3a) I doubt the Constitution or the Delcaration of Independence was written while the founding fathers were drunk or stoned.
--- Never know.
4) I'm not comparing pot to any drug. I'm talking about the faulty logic behind the whiney hippy statement "waa, tobacco is bad and it's legal so pot should be legal too!". That logic can be used to legalize pedophelia as well. Do you like pedophelia?
---Well, like I said before, it just doesn't make sense to keep it illegal. At the very least, decriminalize it.

 

it doesn't matter what happens each time you get high. if you smoke pot all day every day for an extended period, it will lower your intelligence

 

i also don't know for a fact that ghandi didn't have sex with hundreds of preteen boys, but that doesn't mean i'm assuming that he did...

 

I browsed through that article and there were many things inconsistent with my research, but I generally agree with the theme of the article.

I didn't actually see much in that article about the cotton lobby, which was amongst the primary sponsors of the marijuana tax act. seems important.

 

i also dont understand how u could legalize pedophelia by the same logic. they are nothing alike. marijuana has many benefits and the only thing pedophilia can get you is the same thing you can get from hitting a child and jerking off. unless the child enjoys it but then u could have sex with anyone and get the same result. and besides, i doubt any reasonable person with the gift of logic would attempt pedophilia anyway.

 

"You keep mentioning how people will perform this, or perform that, or do this out in public. Smoking cannabis during a surgery, or smoking in public should both remain illegal. The same thing could be same about alcohol, and any other conscious altering substances. Your argument isn't an argument AGAINST legalization. It's an argument against irresponsible behavior, and you're absolutely right about how those things should not take place. If we should be outlawing anything, then it should be to outlaw irresponsible behavior, not the right to consume drugs in a safe environment, and in private."

I keep mentioning because people will do it. If you legalize it, people will do it in public, do it while driving, while doing this, while doing that. Just like with alcohol.

It's all cool mate. I used to be kinda crusty and thought it was cool to drink and smoke up in the park and all that. But then I grew up.

Yea, sure, outlaw irresponsible behavior. People will listen! After all, people don't smoke pot, because it's illegal and people always obey the law!

"Smoking pot is going to happen no matter what law we put in place."

So is irresponsible behavior.

"If anything, laws against the use of drugs only furthers its usage, or at least remains the same (prohibition?). Laws against drug use only makes its usage a taboo. In other words, it only makes it more 'hip', and 'cool' to do so. So this is really just a matter if letting the public know the TRUTH about these substances, because people always respond better to the truth rather than spread out lies."

Great, so then make laws against "irresponsible drug use" so people can do it more. Yeah, you have great logic in your overall argument. I can see you've thought this out for a long time.

Smoke less pot dude, and think more.

"When teens hear on TV that pot makes you lazy, or gives way to reefer madness, get older, searches for answers, and discovers the truth, they realize that the government has been lying to them. Which only furthers peoples suspicion of the government, and creates distrust; and ultimately leads to 'hippydom'."

It also leads to feminism and fatherless children who don't grow up learning that "responsibility" that you speak of.

"Yes, it absolutely does alter your perception, but so does a lot of prescribed medications (which cause at a lot of accidents that you speak of too, btw... should that also be illegal?) Coke and THC are pretty different from one another. Coke makes you feel invincible, weed just makes you very mellow and mostly harmless."

Yes. Wouldn't that be great for the government? A nation full of mellow and mostly harmless people sitting in a circle holding hands while they get beaten on the head by riot squads.

"The type of single-mindedness that you speak of isn't exactly what happens when you are high. I think you mean that you only look at one point of view concering anything that you are thinking of. But that really is just the nature of particular people to do so, I myself always looks to all angles, and THC only helps me to focus. The single-mindedness that I have is that my thoughts do not derail and go into tangents. I am able to more deeply focus on my ideas and to view all angles with more accuracy. But that's just me, and it isn't something that all people necessarily experience."

Derailing thoughts and tangents = creativity. So you're saying pot makes you less creative? Gee, this other stupid hippy told me pot makes people more creative!

Yeah so far the only valid arguments for legalization is where industrial hemp is concerned. But as for psychoactive grade marijuana.. I see no good argument for legalization.

Come on guys!

 

"it doesn't matter what happens each time you get high. if you smoke pot all day every day for an extended period, it will lower your intelligence"

Lowers your intelligence, how so? There is no evidence of this. It does weaken your short-term memory, but that effect discontinues once THC leaves your system. Plenty of elderly individuals have poor short-term memory, would that mean you're becoming less intelligent as well? Also, this is the right of the INDIVIDUAL to do what they want with their body, just as long as it doesn't hurt others.


"
i also don't know for a fact that ghandi didn't have sex with hundreds of preteen boys, but that doesn't mean i'm assuming that he did..."

Ya... What's your point? =)