# Marijuana legalization



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 26, 2013)

Just wondering what the general opinion is of this controversial issue.


----------



## Kosdu (Mar 26, 2013)

I say regulate it like alchohol or make it only smokable in supervised parlors and you are good to go.


Increased revenue, decreased crime, decreased amount of people in prison.





In my opinion, minus the cancer from smoking, Marijuana is less dangerous a drug than alchohol. Alchohol is a drug, a potent psychoactive one.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 26, 2013)

Agreed, except for a few things. I think it should be fully legal to grow, possess, and use both medically and recreationally.
It should be sold to those 16 and older, and distribution should be universally dropped to a misdemeanor. My reasonings? IDK, I just think it'd be pretty nice.


----------



## Kosdu (Mar 26, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> Agreed, except for a few things. I think it should be fully legal to grow, possess, and use both medically and recreationally.
> It should be sold to those 16 and older, and distribution should be universally dropped to a misdemeanor. My reasonings? IDK, I just think it'd be pretty nice.




I believe only a small amount should be allowed to be personally grown, to allow more industry. Either of these ways is fine with me.



But there is something:

Marijuana should NOT be allowed for those under 21. It is like alchohol, it is a good rule.
After 21, the chance for any damage from the drug is greatly diminished, since you are vunerable before.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Mar 26, 2013)

Just like alcohol, it is filth that poisons the brain. I don't care for it, and reserve my right to look down on those who make use of it.


----------



## Teal (Mar 26, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Just like alcohol, it is filth that poisons the brain. I don't care for it, and reserve my right to look down on those who make use of it.


 What about if you used it just for medical reasons? I heard it's a good painkiller.


----------



## Kosdu (Mar 26, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Just like alcohol, it is filth that poisons the brain. I don't care for it, and reserve my right to look down on those who make use of it.



Your choice.


Have fun drinking soda and eating most foods, got stuff in those that are equitable to poison.


@Teal


I heard those properties kick in before a high is reached.


----------



## Azure (Mar 26, 2013)

gonna put this here, will post wall o'text tomorrow on why everybody against this is wrong

because there is always somebody


----------



## Teal (Mar 26, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> Your choice.
> 
> 
> Have fun drinking soda and eating most foods, got stuff in those that are equitable to poison.


 Don't forget the GMOs.




> @Teal
> 
> 
> I heard those properties kick in before a high is reached.


 That's good.


----------



## PsychicOtter (Mar 26, 2013)

I don't see any advantages to legalizing it.  I'm alright with it for medicinal purposes, but aside from that I don't see the point.


----------



## sunshyne (Mar 26, 2013)

PsychicOtter said:


> I don't see any advantages to legalizing it.  I'm alright with it for medicinal purposes, but aside from that I don't see the point.



How about a few dozen fewer dead cops every year? I think that's a pretty good reason. 

Also, a few thousand fewer young people with permanent criminal records every year. For something less harmful than a number of legal drugs.

Also, the elimination of adulterated street weed.

Also, the elimination of a major source of profit for Mexican drug cartels.

Also, the billions of dollars that ARE spent on pot every year going to fund roads and schools, rather than funding drug dealers' rims and guns.

Also, making it so that people know how strong what they're smoking is, by requiring strict labeling.

Also, making it unprofitable for the cartels to grow booby-trapped pot forests in our national parks.

Also, paving the way for a legal hemp industry.

That's about half of the really good reasons... After that you start getting to the "pretty decent" ones.



Hinalle K. said:


> Just like alcohol, it is filth that poisons the brain. I don't care for it, and reserve my right to look down on those who make use of it.



Try as you might to look down on people like Carl Sagan, Sir Richard Branson, or the last three U.S. presidents, I think most people here can see that you're actually looking UP... Way up.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Mar 26, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> Your choice.
> 
> 
> Have fun drinking soda and eating most foods, got stuff in those that are equitable to poison.
> ...


That's a ridiculous comparison.
When was the last time you heard a story of someone crashing a car because they were on a pepsi-high?

Or of a teenager who passed out in a party and got raped because she had a little bit too much gatorade?
Oh please


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Just like alcohol, it is filth that poisons the brain. I don't care for it, and reserve my right to look down on those who make use of it.



Proof please. In all actuality, Cannabidiol is found to have neuroprotective effects, prevent Alzheimer's, treat epilepsy and Parkinson's, and prolomged exposure has been found to increase critical thinking skills.

Tetrahydracannabinol is found to have a number of medical benefits. So many, in fact, that if I were to attempt to list all of them, my reply to your baseless statement would be turned into a wall o' text before I even get halfway through said list. Try and keep an open mind and not be such a sanctimonious douchenozzle. 

EDIT: Tetrahydracannibinol and cannabidiol are the two main ingredients in marijuana.


----------



## Teal (Mar 27, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> That's a ridiculous comparison.
> When was the last time you heard a story of someone crashing a car because they were on a pepsi-high?
> 
> Or of a teenager who passed out in a party and got raped because she had a little bit too much gatorade?
> Oh please


 Both poison, different reactions.


----------



## sunshyne (Mar 27, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> That's a ridiculous comparison.
> When was the last time you heard a story of someone crashing a car because they were on a pepsi-high?
> 
> Or of a teenager who passed out in a party and got raped because she had a little bit too much gatorade?
> Oh please



LOL. You probably think there are stoned drivers rocketing off the roads left and right here in the U.S., but in reality marijuana is very rarely the SOLE substance responsible for traffic accidents. When it is, it's usually because someone either fell asleep, or dropped the joint on their floorboard...


----------



## Hinalle K. (Mar 27, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> Proof please. In all actuality, Cannabidiol is found to have neuroprotective effects, prevent Alzheimer's, treat epilepsy and Parkinson's, and prolomged exposure has been found to increase critical thinking skills.
> 
> Tetrahydracannabinol is found to have a number of medical benefits. So many, in fact, that if I were to attempt to list all of them, my reply to your baseless statement would be turned into a wall o' text before I even get halfway through said list. Try and keep an open mind and not be such a sanctimonious douchenozzle.


Says Ganjaman97 :grin:
Careful not to hit and shatter that pothead of yours!
And I meant poison more in the sense that it greatly alters your state of mind, and impairs you to some level. Can't have fun without reducing your intellect and cognitive skills to that of an ape?




Teal said:


> Both poison, different reactions.


One is not NEARLY as immediate and threatening as the other.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

Joint on the floorboard really hits home.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Mar 27, 2013)

Pot legalization is one of the best things for the lower class that could possibly happen.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

And says Hinalle K, still not having provided evidence pointing towards the contrary of anything I've said.

I don't understand the hostility you're showing.


----------



## sunshyne (Mar 27, 2013)

TeenageAngst said:


> Pot legalization is one of the best things for the lower class that could possibly happen.


Or at the very least decriminalization. Catch a kid making a decision that could be bad for his future? Arrest him, throw him in jail with the other criminals, and put a permanent mark on his record! That'll set him on the right track!

Stupid...


----------



## Teal (Mar 27, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Says Ganjaman97 :grin:
> Careful not to hit and shatter that pothead of yours!
> And I meant poison more in the sense that it greatly alters your state of mind, and impairs you to some level. Can't have fun without reducing your intellect and cognitive skills to that of an ape?
> 
> One is not NEARLY as immediate and threatening as the other.


 Yup, fast like sulfuric acid or slow like lead.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Mar 27, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> And says Hinalle K, still not having provided evidence pointing towards the contrary of anything I've said.
> 
> I don't understand the hostility you're showing.


Evidence to what? Are you high?
_"And I meant poison more in the sense that it greatly alters your state of mind, and impairs you to some level. Can't have fun without reducing your intellect and cognitive skills to that of an ape?"
_
Missed that part?

That said , I respect your decision to be a pothead or a drunk, but don't expect me to be all smiles and hide my contempt!




Teal said:


> Yup, fast like sulfuric acid or slow like lead.


Aaand another inane comparison. Are you on a streak?


----------



## TeenageAngst (Mar 27, 2013)

sunshyne said:


> Or at the very least decriminalization. Catch a kid making a decision that could be bad for his future? Arrest him, throw him in jail with the other criminals, and put a permanent mark on his record! That'll set him on the right track!
> 
> Stupid...



Even worse, misdemeanors remove eligibility for financial aid. And people wonder why poor black people "who have free rides" don't go to college more often.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Mar 27, 2013)

As if the average teenagers and young adults weren't stupid enough,  western societies contribute to further dumbing them down with these legalized substances, albeit temporarily! [or not]
It's truly a shame!


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

I very well may be high, what of it? Let's break it down to the basics. You show contempt for me because I light a plant's reproductive buds on fire and inhale the smoke.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Mar 27, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> I very well may be high, what of it? Let's break it down to the basics. You show contempt for me because I light a plant's reproductive buds on fire and inhale the smoke.


Yes. Only you didn't mention what it does to your mind. Shame on you.

I don't think you're even high right now, on second thought.
Like, dude, how did'ja even manage to turn the computer , maaaan? Doesn't that stuff, like, dumb you down bro?


----------



## sunshyne (Mar 27, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> As if the average teenagers and young adults weren't stupid enough,  western societies contribute to further dumbing them down with these legalized substances, albeit temporarily! [or not]
> It's truly a shame!



As if making something illegal or forbidden does anything but make young people want it more... Ask any parent about that one.



Ganjaman97 said:


> I very well may be high, what of it? Let's break it down to the basics. You show contempt for me because I light a plant's reproductive buds on fire and inhale the smoke.



Hinalle has contempt for you and me because he lives in a repressive armpit of a country, where the common wisdom is that using ANY mind-altering substance whatsoever degrades you in the eyes of God. And admit it or not, some of that nonsense has rubbed off on him over the years.


----------



## Teal (Mar 27, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Aaand another inane comparison. Are you on a streak?


 Yup.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

Sunshyne, you may not be that far off. I'm surprised he has internet access at all.


----------



## sunshyne (Mar 27, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Yes. Only you didn't mention what it does to your mind. Shame on you.
> 
> I don't think you're even high right now, on second thought.
> Like, dude, how did'ja even manage to turn the computer , maaaan? Doesn't that stuff, like, dumb you down bro?



This is why nobody will ever take you seriously. You legitimately believe that pot renders people incapable of doing something like turning on a computer. 

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, there are currently at least two people shredding your repetitive drivel with well-articulated, grammatically correct arguments... WHILE they are high on pot.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

Ha! Yes! High on marijuana, and not only tearing apart his argumets, but forcing him to result to childish behavior.

Methinks a ragequit isn't too far off the horizon.


----------



## Owlette (Mar 27, 2013)

Damn, there's a lot of pretentious butt-hurt in this thread.

I'd  love to see Mary-J decriminalized.  And that has nothing to do with my  personal morals -- thankfully I am confident enough in my own ability to  discern right and wrong so as to avoid an utter break-down when other people  do things I don't agree with.  c:


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

In all honesty, I smoke and I have a "medical card" but I really just like getting high. I'm mainly neutral on the issue of legality, and completely against this "medical marijuana" bullshit where people lie and say they are sick in order to get a card. It's bullshit and is pussyfooting around the issue.

If I had to pick a side I'd say "let's legalize it" because the cat is out of the bag. I don't know what it'll do for America's productivity though. A lot more people would be doing the stuff, but it is more benign than alcohol and unless a lot of them are going into work stoned the productivity factor might not be a huge deal.

Sunshyne pointed out the many advantages it would have.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Mar 27, 2013)

Hinalle K. you're good, but you're not Zerig good. And what ever happened to Toshabi anyway?


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

I don't even understand his turning the computer on logic. Only really big deal is trying to typw with weed fingers.


----------



## Owlette (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I don't know what it'll do for America's productivity though. A lot more people would be doing the stuff, but it is more benign than alcohol and unless a lot of them are going into work stoned the productivity factor might not be a huge deal.



Mmh, I don't know.  I used to live in Holland, and very few of the  citizens actually smoked.  The vast majority of the sales were from  tourism.  I never used to believe in the whole "people only do it  because they're not supposed to" thing, but after being in the  Netherlands I saw how true it really was.  Given that it had no real  'bad-ass' status in Holland, Dutch people really don't care that much.

But then, Americans are American, who knows?


----------



## TigerBeacon (Mar 27, 2013)

Making it legal, sell it, taxing it like alcohol, make money off it, circulate it, save the world. Marijuana. 

Speaking of, I have used pot when my bf pressured me into it. I'd prefer it to alcohol- same effect, slightly less costly and without the addiction and short-term withdrawal pains. Don't get into it cause it doesn't do much for me to be mentally useless all the time and not nearly stressed enough to want it, but for whatever negative side effect it causes I'm pretty sure is mostly hype.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Owlette said:


> Mmh, I don't know.  I used to live in Holland, and very few of the  citizens actually smoked.  The vast majority of the sales were from  tourism.  I never used to believe in the whole "people only do it  because they're not supposed to" thing, but after being in the  Netherlands I saw how true it really was.  Given that it had no real  'bad-ass' status in Holland, Dutch people really don't care that much.
> 
> But then, Americans are American, who knows?



I was thinking more along the lines of more people doing it because it's easily accessible.

Thanks for the anecdote though; that's interesting.


----------



## Owlette (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Thanks for the anecdote though; that's interesting.



Hey, I do what I can.  :U


----------



## TeenageAngst (Mar 27, 2013)

Now if we made cocaine legal it'd blow marijuana off the market.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

TeenageAngst said:


> Now if we made cocaine legal it'd blow marijuana off the market.



That would INCREASE productivity.

Hah... blow :roll:


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

TeenageAngst said:


> Now if we made cocaine legal it'd blow marijuana off the market.



If you can find enough people with the financial means to buy it at 500 bucks a gram plus what is most likely going to be a STEEP ass tax, then sure it will. Or you could go buy a gram of kush for 30 and be satisfied for weeks.


----------



## sunshyne (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I was thinking more along the lines of more people doing it because it's easily accessible.
> 
> Thanks for the anecdote though; that's interesting.



For kids and teenagers (one group that objectively should NOT be smoking marijuana), legalization would almost certainly make it _less_ accessible. According to annual studies, weed has been easier for high schoolers to obtain than alcohol for a long time. That's because to get alcohol in the U.S., at least one person somewhere in the chain needs to be 21 or a have a fake ID.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> If you can find enough people with the financial means to buy it at 500 bucks a gram plus what is most likely going to be a STEEP ass tax, then sure it will. Or you could go buy a gram of kush for 30 and be satisfied for weeks.



500 bucks *a gram* for coke?

A gram of kush lasting for weeks?

What _are you _smoking? :roll:


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> 500 bucks *a gram* for coke?
> 
> A gram of kush lasting for weeks?
> 
> What _are you _smoking? :roll:



White widow, northern lights, did salvia a couple times.

I'll admit, I was most likely exaggerating the coke pricea, I've never personally bought or used it, so I only know what I've heard, but kush is most likely quantitatively less expensive. And if you're not able to afford or find kush, there's always your run-of-the-mill reggie.

A g of kush doesn't last for weeks, it keeps what small amount of psychological withdrawal comes with marijuana use at bay for a long while. K'm sorry, I'm just really out of it right now.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Mar 27, 2013)

TeenageAngst said:


> Hinalle K. you're good, but you're not Zerig good. And what ever happened to Toshabi anyway?


What do you mean, rebel?
I've always been against these substances on these debates, if you care to check back. My dislike of them is very much real.




Ganjaman97 said:


> Ha! Yes! High on marijuana, and not only tearing apart his argumets, but forcing him to result to childish behavior.
> 
> Methinks a ragequit isn't too far off the horizon. I don't even understand his turning the computer on logic. Only really big deal is trying to typw with weed fingers.


How would I know how the minds of potheads work? I speak only of observation. 
Which leads me to believe you're not even high! You're just saying that to prove your point [that last intentional typo was trying a bit too hard]


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> White widow, northern lights, did salvia a couple times.
> 
> I'll admit, I was most likely exaggerating the coke pricea, I've never personally bought or used it, so I only know what I've heard, but kush is most likely quantitatively less expensive. And if you're not able to afford or find kush, there's always your run-of-the-mill reggie.



An 8 ball doesn't even cost that much and that's 3.5 grams. Last I remember 500 bought a half oz, but that was a WHILE ago so I could be off.

I don't think a gram _of anything_ (weed wise) could last that long, seeing how it's a couple of bowl packs. Then again, everything is called kush these days. I stopped paying attention to the names.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

How would I know how the minds of potheads work? I speak only of observation. 
Which leads me to believe you're not even high! You're just saying that to prove your point [that last intentional typo was trying a bit too hard][/QUOTE]

Typo? Whatever. I still love you.


----------



## triage (Mar 27, 2013)

i hope that 97 isn't your birth date


----------



## Belluavir (Mar 27, 2013)

Legalize so I can just pick some up at Walgreens and not have to worry about it any more.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> An 8 ball doesn't even cost that much and that's 3.5 grams. Last I remember 500 bought a half oz, but that was a WHILE ago so I could be off.
> 
> I don't think a gram _of anything_ (weed wise) could last that long, seeing how it's a couple of bowl packs. Then again, everything is called kush these days. I stopped paying attention to the names.



I meant satisfied, as in "that was good ahit. I'm good for now."  As in, no need for any more.


----------



## sunshyne (Mar 27, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> What do you mean, rebel?
> I've always been against these substances on these debates, if you care to check back. My dislike of them is very much real.
> 
> 
> ...



If you don't know what you're talking about then why keep talking? 

If someone secretly fed you pot, you would still be able to turn on your computer. And a whole lot more.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

I'm going to go smoke a bowl of hash, then try to remember how to use my laptop :V


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I'm going to go smoke a bowl of hash, then try to remember how to use my laptop :V



Right on.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Mar 27, 2013)

sunshyne said:


> If you don't know what you're talking about then why keep talking?


So if I don't get drunk at least once, I can't talk about it based on observations?
If I don't do meth at least once, I can't talk about it based on observations?
If I don't steal at least once , I can't talk badly or have an opinion of those who did?

The list goes on...


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

Hinalle, you are such a sensible man, and your views are unlike those of anyone else I know. Perhaps it's because we all live in La La Land and you're so grounded in reality. Please, O Great One, I beseech you: opine for us, your humble underlings.


----------



## PsychicOtter (Mar 27, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> Hinalle, you are such a sensible man, and your views are unlike those of anyone else I know. Perhaps it's because we all live in La La Land and you're so grounded in reality. Please, O Great One, I beseech you: opine for us, your humble underlings.


The country is split about half and half on this issue, so it's not like he's the only one.


----------



## sunshyne (Mar 27, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> So if I don't get drunk at least once, I can't talk about it based on observations?
> If I don't do meth at least once, I can't talk about it based on observations?
> If I don't steal at least once , I can't talk badly or have an opinion of those who did?
> 
> The list goes on...



Yeah, I'm sure you spend tons of time hanging out with the hash smokers over there, studying their every behavior first hand... :V


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

PsychicOtter said:


> The country is split about half and half on this issue, so it's not like he's the only one.



Well, everyone else is posting opinions in a civilized, mostly informed way. He implies that he's superior based solely on the fact that he doesn't smoke marijuana. And he's flat-out insulting Sunshyne and I because we do. If he can resort to childish drivel, why can't i resort to snark?


----------



## Belluavir (Mar 27, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> So if I don't get drunk at least once, I can't talk about it based on observations?
> If I don't do meth at least once, I can't talk about it based on observations?
> If I don't steal at least once , I can't talk badly or have an opinion of those who did?
> 
> The list goes on...



You're not really discussing it, you're not presenting reasoned arguments or facts, you're just being rude.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> So if I don't get drunk at least once, I can't talk about it based on observations?
> If I don't do meth at least once, I can't talk about it based on observations?
> If I don't steal at least once , I can't talk badly or have an opinion of those who did?
> 
> The list goes on...



If you are well-informed...

You referred to car crashes and people "passing out and getting raped."

Neither of those really has to do with pot. I've read studies that show people are MORE careful driving while stoned. I don't think it's necessarily a GOOD thing, but it's certainly nowhere near as much of a risk as alcohol. Also, people don't pass out on pot, get raped and not realize it. That's just silly. (are you thinking of alcohol and roofies?)


----------



## Hinalle K. (Mar 27, 2013)

Belluavir said:


> You're not really discussing it, you're not presenting reasoned arguments or facts, you're just being rude.


What? I'm not being rude. Next thing you'll tell me I'm being rude for pointing out drunks behave as though they're mentally challenged after a few good shots. It's not untrue, is it?
It's no secret that people become airheads under the influence of MJ.




Ricky said:


> If you are well-informed...
> 
> You referred to car crashes and people "passing out and getting raped."
> 
> Neither of those really has to do with pot. I've read studies that show people are MORE careful driving while stoned. I don't think it's necessarily a GOOD thing, but it's certainly nowhere near as much of a risk as alcohol. Also, people don't pass out on pot, get raped and not realize it. That's just silly. (are you thinking of alcohol and roofies?)


I was referring to both pot and alcohol back then. I should have pointed it out.


----------



## Dreaming (Mar 27, 2013)

I don't really see the big deal, I say legalize it in all cases but my views are always extreme on these things. As far as I know, in this ass-backwards country it's illegal in all cases, even medical. But I don't really care, I ain't forcing my opinions on others as fact


----------



## Belluavir (Mar 27, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> What? I'm not being rude. Next thing you'll tell me I'm being rude for pointing out drunks behave as though they're mentally challenged after a few good shots. It's not untrue, is it?
> It's no secret that people become airheads under the influence of MJ.



And I make stupid faces and annoying noises when I have sex, and when I'm half asleep and I couldn't tell you first three letters of my name. 

You're saying that people are lesser human beings to you because they use marijuana. That's rude, to say the least.


----------



## sunshyne (Mar 27, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> What? I'm not being rude. Next thing you'll tell me I'm being rude for pointing out drunks behave as though they're mentally challenged after a few good shots. It's not untrue, is it?



Yeah, it is untrue. People with _alcohol issues_ do that. But the majority of drinkers can have a few good shots responsibly. If they allowed bars or pubs in Saudi Arabia, you'd see that, and your "observations" would be quite different.


----------



## Willow (Mar 27, 2013)

I would be for it if it was taxed like cigarettes and alcohol are. Colorado has the best system though, where a portion of the tax money goes towards funding education. I think everyone should do that because it only makes sense you know.
Also if it were allowed to be grown naturally without all the additives and junk they put in cigarettes, that would be a plus. 

One other thing: Just because someone doesn't have any first hand experience with it doesn't mean they can't hold an opinion or even debate. Shocker I know


Ricky said:


> Neither of those really has to do with pot. I've read studies that show people are MORE careful driving while stoned


Just because someone claims people are more careful while high doesn't actually mean they always are.
A lot of drunk drivers say the same thing :/


----------



## Hinalle K. (Mar 27, 2013)

Belluavir said:


> And I make stupid faces and annoying noises when I have sex, and when I'm half asleep and I couldn't tell you first three letters of my name.
> 
> You're saying that people are lesser human beings to you because they use marijuana. That's rude, to say the least.



Hey, I said I can respect their decision to use those things back on the first page. That doesn't mean I like it.

And you can't really compare willing inebriation to regular biological functions!


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> I was referring to both pot and alcohol back then. I should have pointed it out.



Even with alcohol, it is okay to drive on it below a certain point. If you have a beer or two it's generally okay to drive (and generally legal). Unless you are a complete lightweight =P

There is responsible use of drinking and pot doesn't even have that threshold where you are just *fucked.* For pot, there's _even less_ of an argument against it. Aside from lazy, unmotivated people I just don't know.



sunshyne said:


> Yeah, it is untrue. People with _alcohol issues_  do that. But the majority of drinkers can have a few good shots  responsibly. If they allowed bars or pubs in Saudi Arabia, you'd see  that, and your "observations" would be quite different.



damn, you beat me to it XD



Willow said:


> Just because someone claims people are more careful while high doesn't actually mean they always are.



No, I just said there were studies. There have been studies either way.

I'm not going to say driving stoned is good, just negligible when compared to booze.


----------



## Willow (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> No, I just said there were studies. There have been studies either way.
> 
> I'm not going to say driving stoned is good, just negligible when compared to booze.


I'm aware of this. Though of course, when it comes to these types of things, people tend to find subjects that will intentionally skew their results one way or another so it can be pretty hard to get a good unbiased report. 

Though driving impaired is driving impaired either way. I wouldn't use that to make a case for weed in all honesty but what can I say. I've never tried it so obviously I'm not allowed to hold an opinion :v


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

Lazy nd unmotivated is a stereotype for most. I, for example, hold a job at a local lumber mill.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Willow said:


> I'm aware of this. Though of course, when it comes to these types of things, people tend to find subjects that will intentionally skew their results one way or another so it can be pretty hard to get a good unbiased report.



Erowid is a good place for information.



Ganjaman97 said:


> Lazy nd unmotivated is a stereotype for most.  I, for example, hold a job at a local lumber mill.



Yeah, and I'm a software engineer. I can't work effectively, stoned.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

Lol, true. I made the mistake of going to work stoned once and flipped a forklift. The driving while stoned thing is, obviously, not a stereotype.


----------



## sunshyne (Mar 27, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> Lol, true. I made the mistake of going to work stoned once and flipped a forklift. The driving while stoned thing is, obviously, not a stereotype.



Way to be the reason why people still think weed should be illegal. If you don't know how to responsibly smoke weed, at least know when not to talk about it.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

Willow said:


> I'm aware of this. Though of course, when it comes to these types of things, people tend to find subjects that will intentionally skew their results one way or another so it can be pretty hard to get a good unbiased report.
> 
> Though driving impaired is driving impaired either way. I wouldn't use that to make a case for weed in all honesty but what can I say. I've never tried it so obviously I'm not allowed to hold an opinion :v



We weren't bagging on the guy because he han't tried it before. You can have an opinion on any end of a spectrum. It's just that Hinalle was trying to hold that fact over our heads like it made him an infinitely superior human being. Whether or not you've tried it is irrelevant, it's how you go about it.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

sunshyne said:


> Way to be the reason why people still think weed should be illegal. I'm kind of sorry you decided to speak up for the cause now.



Wasn't my fault, man. Wood was loade in a one-sided way, and I was too slow to stop the tipping. It's not like I made it do a tripple backflip into a lake, killing 15 people in the process. It tipped to one side, and Iwas lucky to get out with only a hairline fracture in my shin.

Besides, "don't opeate industrial machinery loaded with heavy materials while high on marijuana" should be a given, shouldn't it?


----------



## Willow (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Erowid is a good place for information.


A good place for information on cannabis in general probably but..a lot of these reports are kind of outdated :|

What's safe is relative to the driver though I would imagine. Like with anything else.



			
				Ganjaman97 said:
			
		

> We weren't bagging on the guy because he han't tried it before. You can  have an opinion on any end of a spectrum. It's just that Hinalle was  trying to hold that fact over our heads like it made him an infinitely  superior human being. Whether or not you've tried it is irrelevant, it's  how you go about it.


I was being sarcastic. The way sunshyne worded one of his earlier posts made it sound more like "if you've never done it you can't say anything about it" than anything else


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Is It Safe to Drive While Stoned? Cannabis and Driving

That is comprehensive, to say the least, written in 2010 by some MD.

And yeah, you probably shouldn't drive forklifts while stoned, or drive period, or operate heavy machinery. I just don't buy the argument "don't legalize pot because of stoned drivers" because the evidence out there is contradictory at best, to show if it is even a BAD thing. It is probably bad in emergency situations but has been shown to make people more cautious.

Compare this with alcohol and it's kind of a joke.


----------



## Rilvor (Mar 27, 2013)

Entirely pointless. There are a host of psychoactive plants that are completely legal, and no I will not go into detail on which or how.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> Entirely pointless. There are a host of psychoactive plants that are completely legal, and no I will not go into detail on which or how.



I think some people also just...

like weed ;3


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

Um... if you like DYING, then by all means, be my guest and snort some nutmeg, or eat datura. When you're at a hospital feeling like the Devil's violating your soul with a bladed dildo and a pickle jar, don't say no one warned you. There's a reason people with money to burn and looking for a high don't hit up Whole Foods.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> Um... if you like DYING, then by all means, be my guest and snort some nutmeg, or eat datura. When you're at a hospital feeling like the Devil's violating your soul with a bladed dildo and a pickle jar, don't say no one warned you. There's a reason people with money to burn and looking for a high don't hit up Whole Foods.



Well, there's also stuff like HBWR, Salvia, Kratom...

Just don't drive on any of that stuff either. This might happen:

[yt]QYE8vEfXPsU[/yt]










... also, you can't really snort nutmeg. I don't even think the myristicin (sp?) is water soluble. You have to eat a lot of nutmeg for it to do anything. It is also a poison and not a harmless chemical in those doses.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

I've done Salvia, it's scary as shit. People look like mannequins and stationary ojects have motion trails. Hell naw don't drive on Salvia.

Plus, if you could go to a supermarket and buy something that could get you high without major drawbacks, Big Brother would've already put the big kibosh on that shit.

Only thing I can think of would be Kava Kava, and it's more of a moderate sedation than a high.

EDIT: Myristicin very easily crosses the blood-brain barrier. Nutmeg can be easily snorted, eaten, or injected for a high.

Drawbacks: Body pains, cramps, severe headache, dysphoria, dehydration, delusions, and heart palpitations. In extreme cases, palpitations turn into cardiac arrhythmia and hospitalization may be required.


----------



## Rilvor (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I think some people also just...
> 
> like weed ;3



I think some people also just...

are inexcusably lazy.

But see, we share viewpoints that could never agree.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> EDIT: Myristicin very easily crosses the blood-brain barrier. Nutmeg can be easily snorted, eaten, or injected for a high.



No, it can't. The way things work when you snort (or insufflate) them is by absorbing through the mucus membranes. That's not going to happen unless it's water soluble. It also can't be injected.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

People do it, man. Whether or not they actually get high from it, i don't know. But they're bored teenagers with no mone. And we all know that classic formula Teenager+Boredom+Empty Wallet= Stupid. As we speak, there's probably a bored teen lining their anus with peanut butter and putting sunflower petals up there by the handful trying to get high. I've never done it, and it could just be a placebo effect. But putting too much of anything in you is either gonna get you high or get you dead. I'm gonna be honest, I'm just typing shit I've heard if it's something I've never done, so I could very well be wrong. If I am, then I'm sorry in advance.


----------



## Rasly (Mar 27, 2013)

they should legalize it, beause of two reasons, first: people that want to get high, will always find a way to get high, they always did, also as long as it is ilegal, it is main source of income for big criminals. and second: 80% of people on our planet are drug addicts, they are addicted to ether  alcohol, or food or religion.

Bottom line is, we should not try to save extrem stupid people, by trying to create a 100% idiot proof environment, not only we lose our freedoms but also for every idiot we save there is going to be 1 or 2 more in a couple of years. So i say, legalize it from age of 18, like alcohol, but make sure that we teach kids in school about all the dangers that an drug addiction represent.

Ofcourse, politicians won't do anything about, till this whole system colapses, because, idiots is their main source of money and votes.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Mar 27, 2013)

Devil weed will only lead to bad grades and rape.

I thought they thought you this in the 30's.

There is a reason they call it loco weed, because as soon as you take just that tiny puff it's an instantaneous reaction to kill your neighbors son and steal his bike and go to crazy reefer party's where you go into satans state of being and play bitchen piano and then summon the devil lucifer herm self and then all hell breaks loose cuz you smoked weed.  May Jesus the giant spaghetti monster in the sky forgive you and season you with Parmesan cheeses for the rest of your life .  Fucking home wrecker


:V


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 27, 2013)

I don't need to smoke weed, because according to how it makes you feel, I feel like that already sometimes. It's called depersonalization disorder.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I don't need to smoke weed, because according to how it makes you feel, I feel like that already sometimes. It's called depersonalization disorder.



So... Depersonalization disorder causes you to regularly experience divine euphoria, muscle relaxation, free-flowing ideas and abstract thoughts, and all-around wonderfulness? Sign me up for that shit. I used to think the same thing, man. But the truth is that you can't really fully appreciate the feeling that any substance gives you by reading or hearing about it. I've never drunk alcohol, but I'm not going to compare the feeling of drunkenness to that of mental retardation based on hearsay.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Mar 27, 2013)

My opinion is that they should legalize it because of the cost of keeping it out is very high and with the debt, we need to pinch every penny we can. Another reason that is should be legalized is because then, we could regulate and tax it, just like we already do for alcohol and tobacco. The fact that it would most likely decrease crime rates and overdose cases would be only minor compaired to economic impact and very few people can resist the call of coin, expecially politicians.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 27, 2013)

Regardless if they legalize it or not, I personally wish people could just be smart enough to not abuse drugs. Like alcohol, it should be regulated by the people who consume it themselves. Also, I usually do not want to hang around people who do drugs, because they are kind of a bad influence most of the time and can get innocent people in trouble. NOT saying this for everyone.


----------



## Moobelle Thundara (Mar 27, 2013)

The reason why it is or was originally illegal, especially here in the UK, is because the government couldn't place tax on it as it is all basically home grown.

I, myself have no interest in anything like marijuana, tobacco or anything else you can smoke, though I think there are pros and cons of it being legalized. If it was, then crime would be down a fair bit. Also, marijuana has all sorts of side effects like paranoia for a start. Of course, tobacco and alcohol also have their damaging features to our insides, but it's all done by the persons choice. I would say legalize it on the basis of crime would lower.

And just a small note to anyone who has or is considering trying the legal incense substitute; That stuff is worse than actual marijuana. So please be careful.


----------



## Kosdu (Mar 27, 2013)

Why has no nobody brought up morning glory seeds? From what I read, they are a cheap and legal Acid alternative. Spend 20$ on legal seeds, high all week.



As long as you don't OD, seems wicked. I'm going to try them someday.


----------



## Moobelle Thundara (Mar 27, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> Why has no nobody brought up morning glory seeds? From what I read, they are a cheap and legal Acid alternative. Spend 20$ on legal seeds, high all week.
> 
> As long as you don't OD, seems wicked. I'm going to try them someday.



I don't want to come across as the preachy woman of FA, but I wouldn't approve of anything like Acid. Marijuana, I suppose, but you shouldn't use anything like that, Kosdu.

As much as I don't approve of that, all I can ask is that you be careful. I know a few people who used the actual stuff when they were younger and they are mess nowadays.


----------



## Kosdu (Mar 27, 2013)

Moobelle Thundara said:


> I don't want to come across as the preachy woman of FA, but I wouldn't approve of anything like Acid. Marijuana, I suppose, but you shouldn't use anything like that, Kosdu.
> 
> As much as I don't approve of that, all I can ask is that you be careful. I know a few people who used the actual stuff when they were younger and they are mess nowadays.



Thank you for the concern, but I'll be sure to wait till I'm 21 or older.


As I promised my Dad (who once grew psychadelic mushrooms from mail order spores), I won't do this stuff till after I'm 21.




I used to fantasize about wasting my life away on drugs, but I'm better now.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

triage said:


> i hope that 97 isn't your birth date





Ganjaman97 said:


> I've never drunk alcohol



Folks... We have a winner!


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 27, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19372456

There's growing evidence that a slight but statistically significant drop in IQ results from prolonged cannabis use, and this is permanent if cannabis is started in adolescence. 

Therefore I think a minimum age that is slightly over this would be necessary. 

I also would want the same laws that apply to tobacco in my country; don't smoke it in my place of work or in a public place I'm going to be in- I don't want to get a free sample of your drugs. Take them at home.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19372456
> 
> There's growing evidence that a slight but statistically significant drop in IQ results from prolonged cannabis use, and this is permanent if cannabis is started in adolescence.
> 
> Therefore I think a minimum age that is slightly over this would be necessary.



I want to see the same study applied to watching TV.

Just a theory I have.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Mar 27, 2013)

Relevant.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I want to see the same study applied to watching TV.
> 
> Just a theory I have.



The flynn effect, a rise in IQ since the 1930's, seems to march on despite this new fangle entertainment technology.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> The flynn effect, a rise in IQ since the 1930's, seems to march on despite this new fangle entertainment technology.



It has nothing to do with technology, though. Weed isn't technology.

It has to do with the way people choose to spend their free time.


----------



## Kosdu (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> It has nothing to do with technology, though. Weed isn't technology.
> 
> It has to do with the way people choose to spend their free time.



Regardless, this study is about it damaging developing brains, and says it's probably okay for people over 18 (should be 21+).


----------



## CynicalCirno (Mar 27, 2013)

I'm not very much into health debates at the moment, but I'll just say that consuming it through smoking usually isn't very good for your lungs. Oh, and it might be best to refrain from driving. Safer for all of us.

Regardless of that, I have no problem with legalizing. If it makes people shut up about it, then why not? Just remember to tax it, governments. It's a pretty good way to earn money and relieve citizens, by both meanings.

At the end it's just "pick your poison", with marijuana being a slightly less dangerous poison. I'd very much rather see it on the streets than alcohol at all.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> Regardless, this study is about it damaging developing brains, and says it's probably okay for people over 18 (should be 21+).



It is a statistical study that shows an average drop in IQ. It didn't go into pathology.



> Having taken into account other factors such as alcohol or tobacco  dependency or other drug use, as well the number of years spent in  education, they found that those who persistently used cannabis -  smoking it at least four times a week year after year through their  teens, 20s and, in some cases, their 30s - suffered a decline in their  IQ.



I'm not convinced this shows WEED does anything. All it shows is that people who were potheads when they were growing up tend to have lower IQ's. Having grown up around potheads, I would say this falls into the "no shit" category. There were some really smart drug addicts I new in High School and College though. Just, a much bigger percentage of them turned out to be losers.

I think there's a reason for this, and it's not the drugs. People who are underachievers and aren't motivated tend to turn to things like drugs, especially when they are failing in school. The druggies were not usually the ones to get the good grades. Your brain is like a muscle, and if you don't use it for years that would probably show in your IQ (I'm not sure of this so correct me if I'm wrong).


----------



## Machine (Mar 27, 2013)

If it didn't pander to bored high schoolers, and if it didn't smell and taste like shit, I'd probably say, "Legalize that stuff."

On the other hand, at least it's not meth.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Machine said:


> If it didn't pander to bored high schoolers, and if it didn't smell and taste like shit, I'd probably say, "Legalize that stuff."



Wait, you _are really _basing your decision off the smell and taste.

...oookay :roll:


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 27, 2013)

I honestly can't think of a reason why weed should be illegal while much more dangerous drugs like alcohol are perfectly legal to buy pretty much all over the world.


----------



## Machine (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Wait, you _are really _basing your decision off the smell and taste.
> 
> ...oookay :roll:


What? It fucking stinks. I don't like it. :[


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 27, 2013)

Does anyone have any information on possible schizophrenic effects? I heard that some people respond negatively to cannabis, triggering schizophrenia- is this just an old wives' tale or is it legitimate?



Ricky said:


> It has nothing to do with technology, though. Weed isn't technology.
> 
> It has to do with the way people choose to spend their free time.




Correct me if I am wrong, but the researches systematically corrected for social situation, did they not?


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but the researches systematically corrected for social situation, did they not?



It said years spent in education.

You could take a sample of all college graduates and it might show the same thing.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> It said years spent in education.
> 
> You could take a sample of all college graduates and it might show the same thing.



I suppose we need some kids to smoke placebo cannabis, then.


----------



## RadioactiveRedFox (Mar 27, 2013)

I say legalize it. It would save the US immense amounts of money on the War on Drugs and prosecution and incarceration expenses. Hell, they could even tax it and make a shit ton of money off of it. Legalizing it would also allow the reallocation of resources and man power towards dealing with more deserving issues.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

RadioactiveRedFox said:


> I say legalize it. It would save the US immense amounts of money on the War on Drugs and prosecution and incarceration expenses. Hell, they could even tax it and make a shit ton of money off of it. Legalizing it would also allow the reallocation of resources and man power towards dealing with more deserving issues.



Yeah, like maybe the national debt.

pffft... Haha, like that is going to happen


----------



## sunshyne (Mar 27, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19372456
> 
> There's growing evidence that a slight but statistically significant drop in IQ results from prolonged cannabis use, and this is permanent if cannabis is started in adolescence.
> 
> ...



I don't think any serious legalization supporters disagree with your last point. That is already how tobacco is treated across most of the US - you can't smoke indoors except for your home; you can't smoke within 20 feet of a doorway to any public place; and in a lot of states you can't smoke in the same car as someone under age 18. No reason why weed should be treated any differently (except for maybe additional restrictions).


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 27, 2013)

sunshyne said:


> I don't think any serious legalization supporters disagree with your last point. That is already how tobacco is treated across most of the US - you can't smoke indoors except for your home; you can't smoke within 20 feet of a doorway to any public place; and in a lot of states you can't smoke in the same car as someone under age 18. No reason why weed should be treated any differently (except for maybe additional restrictions).


Then I'm more than happy to let people smoke as much cannabis as they like.


----------



## badlands (Mar 27, 2013)

not smoking in a car full stop would be a good idea.

anyway it should be legal, it's time they based decisions like this on the evidence, not politics.


----------



## RadioactiveRedFox (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Yeah, like maybe the national debt.
> 
> pffft... Haha, like that is going to happen



You don't think the US would save any money by making pot legal?


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

RadioactiveRedFox said:


> You don't think the US would save any money by making pot legal?



No, I think they would spend it, especially with a Democrat in office.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't help.

I just hate the fact that we never save money.


----------



## RadioactiveRedFox (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> No, *I think they would spend it*, especially with a Democrat in office.
> 
> That doesn't mean it wouldn't help.
> 
> I just hate the fact that we never save money.



I can't say I disagree with you there, if there is anything the government is good at it's spending money frivolously.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 27, 2013)

RadioactiveRedFox said:


> I can't say I disagree with you there, if there is anything the government is good at it's spending money frivolously.


Don't worry there if there is one constant in the world it's that time undoes all.

Like with the sequester; cause of budget cuts not only are they having to let illegal immigrants go from prison, but on top of that it's harming the war on drugs.  All it needs is for it get bad enough financially for them to have to make reforms on marijuana to save money.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Mar 27, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> Why has no nobody brought up morning glory seeds? From what I read, they are a cheap and legal Acid alternative. Spend 20$ on legal seeds, high all week.
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you don't OD, seems wicked. I'm going to try them someday.


Aaahahahahaha, no.

Morning glory seeds are nothing like acid.  I've done both and LSD is way, way better.


----------



## Azure (Mar 27, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Aaahahahahaha, no.
> 
> Morning glory seeds are nothing like acid.  I've done both and LSD is way, way better.


yeah morning glory seeds dont do ANYTHING. even after i ate like, enough for 5 people.

of course i once ate 3 sheets of lsd from out my undies in the back of the paddywagon so i didnt get LIFE IN PRISON. so i know the difference :v

god that was an awful 5 days. or month. i dont even know how long. A+++ rating, would attempt brainmelt again.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Azure said:


> yeah morning glory seeds dont do ANYTHING



HBWR is a lot more effective. Morning Glory has LSA but in very small amounts. Even if you got good stuff online and ate enough, you would probably get a terrible stomach ache during and after.

Even HBWR makes me puke, if I do enough. And I husked them and all that.


----------



## Azure (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> HBWR is a lot more effective. Morning Glory has LSA but in very small amounts. Even if you got good stuff online and ate enough, you would probably get a terrible stomach ache during and after.
> 
> Even HBWR makes me puke, if I do enough. And I husked them and all that.


just extract all the di-methyl-tryptamine from 10 kilos of mimosa bark and be a boss.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Azure said:


> just extract all the di-methyl-tryptamine from 10 kilos of mimosa bark and be a boss.



I know someone in Oakland who wants to try that.

It wouldn't be very hard, and you can get it online...

Also, wait... 10 kilos? Wow, that's a lot.


----------



## Azure (Mar 27, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I know someone in Oakland who wants to try that.
> 
> It wouldn't be very hard, and you can get it online...
> 
> Also, wait... 10 kilos? Wow, that's a lot.


you only get about two ounces out of all that though. but considering the average dose of DMT, well, that is a LOT


----------



## Batty Krueger (Mar 27, 2013)

Azure said:


> yeah morning glory seeds dont do ANYTHING. even after i ate like, enough for 5 people.
> 
> of course i once ate 3 sheets of lsd from out my undies in the back of the paddywagon so i didnt get LIFE IN PRISON. so i know the difference :v
> 
> god that was an awful 5 days. or month. i dont even know how long. A+++ rating, would attempt brainmelt again.


Lol, you poor bastard


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Azure said:


> you only get about two ounces out of all that though. but considering the average dose of DMT, well, that is a LOT



Oh, okay. As long as I'm not *really* extracting that much plant material.

That would suck.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 27, 2013)

I've never done DMT. What's it like?


----------



## Ricky (Mar 27, 2013)

Don't know. That's one of the few drugs I haven't actually tried.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Mar 27, 2013)

Dmt will make you trip balls for 20-30 minutes.  Its called the business mans drug because it only lasts as long as a lunch break.  And I'm done talking about it because I'm sure discussing illegal drugs is against the AUP.


----------



## Azure (Mar 27, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> I've never done DMT. What's it like?



this is a good resource for your question.

also shpongle

if you want personal stories, i suggest pming me


----------



## Radiowires (Mar 28, 2013)

Saved my life. 
Should be legalized.


----------



## wtfjinx (Mar 28, 2013)

Radiowires said:


> Saved my life.
> Should be legalized.


 I'd like to know this story.


In my opinion, sure, legalize it as a controlled substance like Alcohol or tobacco products. Also, it can only be used in your home, not at work or in your vehicle / public. Make it the same as alcohol. Same rules apply and enforce them like a motherfucker. DUI, open container, the whole nine yards. I deal with enough wrecks and deaths over drunk drivers, so I am a little opinionated on this.


----------



## Moobelle Thundara (Mar 28, 2013)

wtfjinx said:


> I'd like to know this story.
> 
> 
> In my opinion, sure, legalize it as a controlled substance like Alcohol or tobacco products. Also, it can only be used in your home, not at work or in your vehicle / public. Make it the same as alcohol. Same rules apply and enforce them like a motherfucker. DUI, open container, the whole nine yards. I deal with enough wrecks and deaths over drunk drivers, so I am a little opinionated on this.



Agreed.


----------



## EloeElwe (Mar 28, 2013)

Moobelle Thundara said:


> Agreed.


I also agree, though testing someone for being under the influence could be a problem. THC stays in your body a long time, even when you are no longer under it's influence.


----------



## Namba (Mar 28, 2013)

LEGALIZE THAT SHIT


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Mar 29, 2013)

Jah sight, Eyal.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 29, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Does anyone have any information on possible schizophrenic effects? I heard that some people respond negatively to cannabis, triggering schizophrenia- is this just an old wives' tale or is it legitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Only if you're prone to such disorders due to genetics. If your family has a clean slate then there's little to no issue.


----------



## wtfjinx (Mar 29, 2013)

EloeElwe said:


> I also agree, though testing someone for being under the influence could be a problem. THC stays in your body a long time, even when you are no longer under it's influence.



Not really. If a cop pulls you over, you reek of marijuana smoke, blood shot eyes, driving stupidly, carrying obviously used paraphernalia or have half-smoked shit in your ashtray, and show other signs of being under the influence, you should get a DUI.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 1, 2013)

I took pipe hits while driving 80 mph on the highway today. 

proskillz


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 1, 2013)

On the one hand, I understand and approve of the arguments for marijuana legalisation from the perspective that prohibition hasn't worked. On the other hand, I have enough problems with dealing with _tobacco_ smokers and their filthy smoke, cigarette butts and overall unpleasantness of their habit on non-smokers, so I'm not exactly brimming with enthusiasm of having to deal with wacky baccy smokers as well as the regular ones. 

So I would like to see marijuana smoking treated the same as tobacco: legally available *but *heavily taxed up the wazhoo, mandatory plain packaging, banned advertising, age-limited sales, banned from pubs, restaurants, clubs, workplaces and other locations where tobacco is already banned, and have it generally treated like the filthy antisocial habit that tobacco smoking is.


----------



## chagen (Apr 1, 2013)

up to 3 members of my family may have schizophrenia. one committed suicide because of it.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 1, 2013)

Why do people hate weed so much, anyway?

Only one answer, pure unadulterated ignorance.


----------



## Sithon (Apr 1, 2013)

I'm all for it. Its been proven less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, and has 0 recorded deaths each year. Whats not to love? (Not that I have ever tried it )


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 1, 2013)

SMOKE WEED ERRYDAY.

Don't let any faggot tell you otherwise.

If someone tells you you should stop smoking weed for whatever reason, rape them. Rape them to death. Then rape their families.


----------



## JerryFoxcoon (Apr 1, 2013)

Heh... weed is way less addictive than cigarette, it's been proven. In fact among all kinds of drugs existing, marijuana is among the least toxic ones in terms of addiction, neurological toxicity and general toxicity. Of course if you smoke like a pound of weed everyday it'll be bad, but lots of people just smoke one joint in a party for pleasure and do not get addicted like they would with cigs. One joint from time to time if far from being dangerous for your health IMO.

But it's only a matter of money. Governments get monstrous amounts of money from taxes with cigs, as they do with gas. Marijuana wouldn't even generate a quarter of what tobacco does. Governments start to discourage smoking tobacco only because it's costing almost as much money in healthcare as what they generate. Money... only the dang money...


----------



## Azure (Apr 1, 2013)

(â•®Â°-Â°)â•®â”³â”â”â”³ ROW ROWï»¿ FIGHT DA POWA! (â•¯Â°â–¡Â°)â•¯ â”»â”â”â”»


----------



## DrDingo (Apr 1, 2013)

Well, I guess if it's legalised, the thrill of smoking it to break the law and get away with it would disappear. Plus, any addicts could be easily tracked down and helped with their problems.


----------



## Azure (Apr 1, 2013)

DrDingo said:


> Well, I guess if it's legalised, the thrill of smoking it to break the law and get away with it would disappear. Plus, any addicts could be easily tracked down and helped with their problems.


a weed addict? gotta be the most pathetic person on this earth yo, hands fucking down. id love to find a person who needs help quitting pot, resorts to violent crime and debasement of self to continue access to it, and needs some sort of ridiculous AA bullshit to be rid of it. i call upon the power of science to help me find such a mook

i literally used to smoke an ounce a day, and went to smoking none at all. i had absolutely zero negative affects, and i know what addiction is, have an addictive personality, and was a hard drug addict for almost a decade. weed addict? does the pope shit in the woods?


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 1, 2013)

God damn, guys... Turning a discussion on legalization into a discussion on how to distill more dangerous substances = not fucking helping. 

Public Relations and Methods of Effective Persuasion 101.



Azure said:


> a weed addict? gotta be the most pathetic person on this earth yo, hands fucking down. id love to find a person who needs help quitting pot, resorts to violent crime and debasement of self to continue access to it, and needs some sort of ridiculous AA bullshit to be rid of it. i call upon the power of science to help me find such a mook
> 
> i literally used to smoke an ounce a day, and went to smoking none at all. i had absolutely zero negative affects, and i know what addiction is, have an addictive personality, and was a hard drug addict for almost a decade. weed addict? does the pope shit in the woods?



If you quit a serious weed-smoking habit cold, it makes you restless, and makes you kind of want to punch someone in the face for a few days.... But that's hardly real addiction. Even caffeine withdrawal causes far more profound effects.



nadja said:


> up to 3 members of my family may have schizophrenia. one committed suicide because of it.



Sorry, but what does this have to do with pot? The fact that there is some small correlation between long-term pot smokers and schizophrenia rates doesn't mean three members of your family became schizophrenics from trying weed... That sounds like a serious genetic predisposition to me.


----------



## Azure (Apr 1, 2013)

sunshyne said:


> God damn, guys... Turning a discussion on legalization into a discussion on how to distill more dangerous substances = not fucking helping.


DMT isnt dangerous. In fact your brain manufactures it all on its own. Responsible use is applicable to all forms of drugs in order for safety to be achieved, from alcohol to heroin to LSD to meth.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Apr 1, 2013)

Azure said:


> DMT isnt dangerous. In fact your brain manufactures it all on its own. Responsible use is applicable to all forms of drugs in order for safety to be achieved, from alcohol to heroin to LSD to meth.


applicable to all forms my ass
if responsibility was such a big thing among users we wouldn't have so many problems with these substances [even the legalized ones] as we do now, would we?

responsible meth use... pfft, that's rich!


----------



## Azure (Apr 1, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> applicable to all forms my ass
> if responsibility was such a big thing among users we wouldn't have so many problems with these substances [even the legalized ones] as we do now, would we?
> 
> responsible meth use... pfft, that's rich!


responsibility isnt something you can legislate, or probate. it has to be demonstrated through education, or learned through repetition. and ill wager there are more responsible meth users than there are alcoholics. just look at the death rates. if you combine all the deaths caused by illegal drugs, it falls far short compared to the deaths caused by alcohol alone, let alone tobacco, another very legal drug. ill also add that a single person has yet to die from marijuana overdose.


----------



## Golden (Apr 1, 2013)

As far as I'm concerned, the real reason why pot is not legalized is because it makes you want to not do anything. Who cares? It doesn't have addictive properties and the decision to do it is purely choice.


----------



## Ryuu (Apr 2, 2013)

Its legal here in CO, well sort of. LOL I support it, but very rarely smoke. Only when i get like 2 days off from work and can actually enjoy it. I used to smoke daily, and a lot of it, But i found it was actually causing me hangovers so i cut back. I actually haven't smoked in a while now. lol


----------



## Ikrit (Apr 2, 2013)

weed has many similar effects to alcohol, so it should be regulated the same way


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

1. There's no such fucking thing as a weed addict.

2. No, weed does not have similar affects as alcohol. They're completely different.

3. If you've never done research on marijuana, and you clearly don't know jack shit about it, your opinion on it ceases to matter.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Apr 2, 2013)

RaichuOPs said:


> the decision to do it is purely choice.


Isn't this with just about any drug? 
Seldom have I heard of a junkie who was forced to try something.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

There's one thing that people who support legal weed have that people who are against it will never have. Scientific reasoning and logic.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> There's one thing that people who support legal weed have that people who are against it will never have. Scientific reasoning and logic.


I don't lack logic or reason. Yet I would rather see the world without legal marijuana. Does that make me a dumbass?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> I don't lack logic or reason. Yet I would rather see the world without legal marijuana. Does that make me a dumbass?



Trying to keep marijuana illegal goes completely against logic and reasoning. So yes.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Apr 2, 2013)

Pretty big, scientific words coming from a pothead! :lol:


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

That's because I'm smarter than you, Hinalle, regardless of what drugs I put into my body. I'm a scientist.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> Trying to keep marijuana illegal goes completely against logic and reasoning. So yes.


In my eyes you're a lesser being for needing a high to have fun. That's the only reason you'd use it for. If not, then why on earth would you _need_ it for.
Besides, people arque that it's just about as harmless as alcohol. Tell you what, if alcohol came out now it'd be illegal. It's too late to brand it that now so folk are doing what they can to at least hold weed out the legal streets.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> 1. There's no such fucking thing as a weed addict.



LE 420 SMOK WED ERY DAY 

BTW I CUD QUIT IF I WANTED U GUIS


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

I honestly don't give three tugs of a dead dog's dick if you think of me as lesser. I smoke weed because I have mental instabilities and anxiety issues that marijuana helps to remedy quite well. It also helps me be more real of a person. I'm not a pathetic loser who needs to look down on other people as "lesser beings" to feel good about myself. I just smoke a bowl, look at the planet, laugh at what I don't like, and move the fuck on living like a normal human being. 

I don't suck dick for weed, I've never been involved in any violent acts for weed, and I've never gotten a DUI or any sort of criminal offense. All I do is just smoke bud for my ailments and act happy. If you think I deserve to go to jail for that, then you're clearly the less intelligent one here and I hope everyone laughs at you like I am.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 2, 2013)

How can you be a more real person when stoned out of your face?

That's like me saying I should drink because it makes me confident and brave.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Because when I'm stoned I'm less of an impulsive, moody jackass.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> Because when I'm stoned I'm less of an impulsive, moody jackass.



So you're only able to be nice once you're stoned.

That doesn't sound healthy in the least.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> I honestly don't give three tugs of a dead dog's dick if you think of me as lesser. I smoke weed because I have mental instabilities and anxiety issues that marijuana helps to remedy quite well. It also helps me be more real of a person. I'm not a pathetic loser who needs to look down on other people as "lesser beings" to feel good about myself. I just smoke a bowl, look at the planet, laugh at what I don't like, and move the fuck on living like a normal human being.
> 
> I don't suck dick for weed, I've never been involved in any violent acts for weed, and I've never gotten a DUI or any sort of criminal offense. All I do is just smoke bud for my ailments and act happy. If you think I deserve to go to jail for that, then you're clearly the less intelligent one here and I hope everyone laughs at you like I am.


http://dagobah.net/flash/smkwd3vryd4a.swf
Ever come to think of that maybe your Cannabis usage might feed your mental instabilities and anxiety issues?
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/expertadvice/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabis.aspx
"
[h=3]*Mental health problems*[/h]There is growing evidence that people with serious mental illness, including depression and psychosis, are more likely to use cannabis or have used it for long periods of time in the past.  Regular use of the drug has appeared to double the risk of developing a psychotic episode or long-term schizophrenia. However, does cannabis cause depression and schizophrenia or do people with these disorders use it as a medication?
Over the past few years, research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents.


*Depression*
A study following 1600 Australian school-children, aged 14 to 15 for seven years, found that while children who use cannabis regularly have a significantly higher risk of depression, the opposite was not the case - children who already suffered from depression were not more likely than anyone else to use cannabis. However, adolescents who used cannabis daily were five times more likely to develop depression and anxiety in later life.



*Schizophrenia*
Three major studies followed large numbers of people over several years, and showed that those people who use cannabis have a higher than average risk of developing schizophrenia. If you start smoking it before the age of 15, you are 4 times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder by the time you are 26. They found no evidence of self-medication. It seemed that, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop symptoms."
Also "
[h=3]*What are its effects?*[/h]*Pleasant*
A â€˜highâ€™ - a sense of relaxation, happiness, sleepiness, colours appear more intense, music sounds better.
*Unpleasant*
Around 1 in 10 cannabis users have unpleasant experiences, including confusion, hallucinations, anxiety and paranoia. The same person may have either pleasant or unpleasant effects depending on their mood and circumstances. These feelings are usually only temporary â€“ although as the drug can stay in the system for some weeks, the effect can be more long-lasting than users realise."


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Uuuuh, nobody here is saying that kids should smoke weed. Yeah, that's a bad fucking idea, and it's going to lead to problems.

I'm not a child. I know what I'm doing, and I have my responsibility. 


Also, your whole post is full of bullshit with no sources and no proof.

http://www.medicann.com/cannabis-and-pain-relief/anxiety/

I have friends with multiple problems, including one with major PTSD. Weed helps them ALL. ALL of them smoke weed, and ALL of them are thankful for it in it's legal medical status. Weed saved my life, personally. I would have blown my head away years ago if it wasn't for weed. This plant is something beautiful that can be researched and used to help people, but we'll never get there if people are going to jail for just having it.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 2, 2013)

So you guys function because of weed. Because you're stoned.

Like I said, I could get over my social self-esteem by being drunk as shit.

Honestly, I actually support weed to a degree, I think its prohibition is more trouble than it's worth (1920s + booze + USA) but acting as if the temporary effects of a drug is the solution to all your problems and should count as part of your super-healthy 5-a-day is just really fucking dumb.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 2, 2013)

Weed helps incredibly well when going through chemotherapy.  It makes you want to eat and helps keep the food down once eatin.  Without marijuana chemo would have been a complete nightmare and I would have withered away from not eating.


It helped me and thousands of other people that had to go through chemo.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Duh, I don't plan on being weed-dependent for my whole life. However, when you're a highly-anxious transgendered homosexual furry living in a Baptist home on the Bible belt of Fresno, one of the shittiest cities in California with nearly no jobs and very very VERY poor living conditions, sometimes being sober all the time becomes too much.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> Uuuuh, nobody here is saying that kids should smoke weed. Yeah, that's a bad fucking idea, and it's going to lead to problems.
> 
> I'm not a child. I know what I'm doing, and I have my responsibility.
> 
> ...


Lets see. Did you check the link I put up? It leads to the royal fucking college of psychiatrists. A fairly trustable source imo
Yours leads to an organization that basically advertises itself with medical cannabis. I'd doubt one's credibility.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Not very credible at all, actually. Not to mention, like I said, all your info you posted had to do with marijuana use in children.

NO SHIT THAT'S BAD. Even I fucking know that, and I'm apparently a deviant pothead who's so dumb for smoking a bud every day.

People like you make me sick. You try to prevent people from getting what they need due to some bullshit feeling of self-righteousness, thinking you're doing good for the world by telling people that their medicine that has been medically proven to work on many levels is bad and should be illegal. These professionals you seem to trust so well are pushing deadlier drugs than weed all over the world like fucking candy, and you're worried about a drug whose only proven medical negatives are temporary lung damage and the munchies? What a load of shit.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Apr 2, 2013)

What are you doing talking about responsibility , Akhmill Lucy, when you stated just a page ago that you smoke that thing while driving on highways? Oh , please.






Azure said:


> responsibility isnt something you can legislate, or probate. it has to be demonstrated through education, or learned through repetition. and ill wager there are more responsible meth users than there are alcoholics. just look at the death rates. if you combine all the deaths caused by illegal drugs, it falls far short compared to the deaths caused by alcohol alone, let alone tobacco, another very legal drug. ill also add that a single person has yet to die from marijuana overdose.


That's because those two are commonly legalized.
Legalize all that other filth [meth, heroin, you name it], and you'd bet the numbers of "irresponsible use" and death caused by those would sky-rocket, as well.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

It was a sarcastic joke, Hinalle. I'm not that self-destructive. Though if I was sober, I probably would be.

There is no irresponsible use of weed.

Nobody OD's on it, nobody hurts anybody on it, and nobody gets in car wrecks because of it.

If you smoke weed and fuck up, it's not the weed's fault, it's YOURS.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> Not very credible at all, actually. Not to mention, like I said, all your info you posted had to do with marijuana use in children.


You did not read it properly. 14-15 was the age they started the testing for seven years. They were about 21-22 when it ended.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> It was a sarcastic joke, Hinalle. I'm not that self-destructive. Though if I was sober, I probably would be.
> 
> There is no irresponsible use of weed.
> 
> ...


Was it , really? I wouldn't put it past you.
And oh ,please. Never should someone who's high on weed, or anything of the sort really, be allowed to drive a car.
That thing obviously alters your state of mind,your perception, you cognitive skills and attention spam. People should be sober when driving, no matter what.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

UUUUUUUUH, if you're being tested for something like that throughout your teenage years, one of your biggest developmental stages, YOU'RE GOING TO BE FUCKED UP. I blame the scientists in charge for whatever problems the children experienced, not the weed.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Was it , really? I wouldn't put it past you.
> And oh ,please. Never should someone who's high on weed, or anything of the sort really, be allowed to drive a car.
> That thing obviously alters your state of mind,your perception, you cognitive skills and attention spam. People should be sober when driving, no matter what.



See, now you're just spouting ignorance, because you have no idea about the affects of marijuana and driving.

While I agree that you should not be under the influence while driving, it is very possible and very easy to drive on weed.

Getting stoned doesn't alter your perception or change reality in any way. You'd know this if you weren't ignorant.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 2, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> That thing obviously alters your state of mind,your perception, you cognitive skills and attention spam. People should be sober when driving, no matter what.



This this this this

I wouldn't even drive after loads of caffiene


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 2, 2013)

So much ignorance! I love it.

I don't blaze anymore but I did for 14 years or so.  Marijuana doesn't do the things you guys are claiming it does.  I know a shitload of other people that still blaze and have been for 30-40 years and they are fine.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> UUUUUUUUH, if you're being tested for something like that throughout your teenage years, one of your biggest developmental stages, YOU'RE GOING TO BE FUCKED UP. I blame the scientists in charge for whatever problems the children experienced, not the weed.


I have not followed the test itself, but common sense would say that they simply followed active users, not create them.
All the test did was that few times a year they'd talk to a psychiatrist who would evaluate them, as that is the goal of the experiment.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Gibby said:


> LE 420 SMOK WED ERY DAY
> 
> BTW I CUD QUIT IF I WANTED U GUIS



Weed is not addictive. You know what is addictive? Alcohol is addictive.

I have been drunk for the last 4 or 5 days and I can't just stop. Like, physically can not.

Do you know why? Because alcohol has WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS and I would probably die.

So please, spare me on the addiction shit. Weed isn't any more addictive than video games.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> I have not followed the test itself, but common sense would say that they simply followed active users, not create them.
> All the test did was that few times a year they'd talk to a psychiatrist who would evaluate them, as that is the goal of the experiment.


Oh my God, this doesn't change the fact that you're telling me doctors did drug-related tests on CHILDREN.

CHILDREN DOING DRUGS IS BAD. IT WILL FUCK THEM UP. REGARDLESS OF HOW LONG THE STUDY WAS.

Good lord, how can sober people have such a loose grasp of the human psyche?! You're sober, you're supposed to be the smarter ones, yet here you are telling me that kids did drugs and got fucked up and you act like I should be surprised? That's fucking loony, if you ask me.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> See, now you're just spouting ignorance, because you have no idea about the affects of marijuana and driving.
> 
> While I agree that you should not be under the influence while driving, it is very possible and very easy to drive on weed.
> 
> Getting stoned doesn't alter your perception or change reality in any way. You'd know this if you weren't ignorant.


Doesn't alter you enough to prevent you from driving? Really?
So all those goons behaving like complete baboons while high on that thing are just acting?
You should not get near a car while under the influence of that thing. Period!





d.batty said:


> So much ignorance! I love it.


Ignorance =/= not doing all that messed up stuff you've mentioned doing here

O share your wisdom, Drug Lord!


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Doesn't alter you enough to prevent you from driving? Really?
> So all those goons behaving like complete baboons while high on that thing are just acting?
> You should not get near a car while under the influence of that thing. Period!





You're talking about drunk drivers, not stoned ones.

You've never seen a stoned driver. Wanna know how I know this? Because a stoned driver looks just like all the other sober drivers on the road. There's no difference. Being stoned does not keep you from driving normally, unless of course you've smoked so much weed you can't stand up to get in your car in the first place.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Doesn't alter you enough to prevent you from driving? Really?
> So all those goons behaving like complete baboons while high on that thing are just acting?
> You should not get near a car while under the influence of that thing. Period!



It's probably not good, but when you compare it to alcohol it's night and fucking day.

I don't know if I can openly admit on here that I used to drive stoned all the fucking time...

like every day,

because that would be illegal. So, let's just say I may have.

The only time I (may have) got(ten) in a terrible accident was when I was drunk off my ass and crushed my Ford Focus like a tin can.

Broke my neck, collarbone, some ribs...

Trust me, it's like night and day :roll:


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 2, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Doesn't alter you enough to prevent you from driving? Really?
> So all those goons behaving like complete baboons while high on that thing are just acting?
> You should not get near a car while under the influence of that thing. Period!
> 
> ...


Now your just being ridiculous.


----------



## Jaseface (Apr 2, 2013)

I'm ok if the people decide to legalize it cause its the voters choice.  But I do believe that you should not get near a car or anything like it such as construction equipment ect. under the influence of anything.  Hell even your own emotions can and have affected the ability to drive.  If it is legalized then it should be controlled like alcohol but even then kids have been getting around the control of these substances be them legal or not and will continue to do so but that doesn't change my opinion that kids shouldn't do it cause no matter what if they want it then they will find a way to get it.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

As long as weed is controlled by the illegal market, it's going to be much easier for kids to get a hold of. Once weed is held in clubs and stores where ID and such is needed, it'll be like kids without cigarettes ore booze. They CAN get it, but it will be more difficult once people are legally distributing it. On the black market, there's no age limit, and weed is not hard to find.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> It's probably not good, but when you compare it to alcohol it's night and fucking day.
> 
> I don't know if I can openly admit on here that I used to drive stoned all the fucking time...
> 
> ...


a few effects of MJ : 
"*altered conscious perception*"
"*Slowed reaction time*, and distorted sense of time"
"Magical or "random" thinking"
"Paranoia"
"*Anxiety*"
"*Short-term memory loss*"
"At higher doses, effects can include* altered body image*, *auditory and/or visual illusions*"

None of those sound very friendly to an activity which requires sobriety, quick thinking, and attention. Such as driving!

"Duude, did I just pass dat red light? I think I did! LOL!"

You're no better than drunk drivers. Especially at "higher doses".

If it were ever to be truly legalized, there should be severe punishment for driving under the influence.




d.batty said:


> Now your just being ridiculous.


Am I? You've apparently done so many of those substances already, I'm surprised you're still sane and breathing!


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Hinalle, everything you just said was bullshit.

Go away. You know nothing about weed. You're now just yelling nonsense at us.


----------



## Jaseface (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> As long as weed is controlled by the illegal market, it's going to be much easier for kids to get a hold of. Once weed is held in clubs and stores where ID and such is needed, it'll be like kids without cigarettes ore booze. They CAN get it, but it will be more difficult once people are legally distributing it. On the black market, there's no age limit, and weed is not hard to find.


black market or legal market it will still be just as easy to get ahold of.  In my state you cant legally purchase cigarettes until the age of 19 whereas the states around me the age is 18.  That didn't stop me from getting smokes when I was 18 same with alcohol that just goes to show no mater how controlled it is they will still get it and whatever market it is on will not make a difference at all.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Jaseface said:


> black market or legal market it will still be just as easy to get ahold of.  In my state you cant legally purchase cigarettes until the age of 19 whereas the states around me the age is 18.  That didn't stop me from getting smokes when I was 18 same with alcohol that just goes to show no mater how controlled it is they will still get it and whatever market it is on will not make a difference at all.


It will make a difference for the children under 18.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 2, 2013)

I seriously doubt you people claiming it does not affect one's ability to operate heavy machinery. There are a host of less mind-altering substances that do, so I mean really.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

What's less mind-altering than weed? I can't think of much.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> Hinalle, everything you just said was bullshit.
> 
> Go away. You know nothing about weed. You're now just yelling nonsense at us.


Bollocks, I suppose all those countless mental health researches, documentaries and sites lied to me, and you're telling me the absolute truth based on your exclusive personal experiences.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Apr 2, 2013)

He knows enough to voice his opinion, which I share. Don't drive while having an altered state of mind. It's dumb and dangerous.
You behave like there was nothing wrong or as if weed had no effects other than positive. I'm just guessing here, but I have this feeling you'd say the same things about alcohol. "No it doesn't do anything for me. I just use it to feel more free n' shit. It's helped me through rough times, and it has done that to many others. I could quit drinking any second yanno?"


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> a few effects of MJ :
> "*altered conscious perception*"
> "*Slowed reaction time*, and distorted sens?e of time"
> "Magical or "random" thinking"
> ...



So what is your point, Captain Obvious?

I never said it was a good thing. I just said it was a joke when compared to drunk driving.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

No, you don't. You don't know shit. You know how I know? Because if you knew anything about weed, you'd be in favor of legalizing it. 

And no, I'm not a drinker. I just like smoking weed. See, that's what makes me sick about you people. So quick to make judgments based on shit you don't even know anything about. You should go to church, it's a better place where you'll find more people like yourself.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> No, you don't. You don't know shit. You know how I know? Because if you knew anything about weed, you'd be in favor of legalizing it.
> 
> And no, I'm not a drinker. I just like smoking weed. See, that's what makes me sick about you people. So quick to make judgments based on shit you don't even know anything about. You should go to church, it's a better place where you'll find more people like yourself.



'You're wrong because you don't agree with me,'

[regardless of my views on the legalisation of cannabis, that argument was really quite redundant]


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> No, you don't. You don't know shit. You know how I know? Because if you knew anything about weed, you'd be in favor of legalizing it.
> 
> And no, I'm not a drinker. I just like smoking weed. See, that's what makes me sick about you people. So quick to make judgments based on shit you don't even know anything about. You should go to church, it's a better place where you'll find more people like yourself.


Ahahaha, ahahahaha.. No.
Religion's got nothing to do with this. Don't reel it in.
And I'm sorry I'm not a pothead. I never found the fascination behind cannabis and I still fail to, even though you've made some earth-breaking points about it.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> 'You're wrong because you don't agree with me,'



No, they're wrong because literally every point they've brought up has been FALSE. They claim to have loads of proof but have literally none. Nada. Zero. Zip. 

Weed is going to become legal in California next year for a reason beyond people just like to get stoned. It has been deemed a safer substance by most doctors, and in fact the only long-term negative affects that have been linked to it is temporary lung damage from smoking it.

In fact, in edible form, marijuana is 100% nutritious.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> So what is your point, Captain Obvious?
> 
> I never said it was a good thing. I just said it was a joke when compared to drunk driving.


So, having driven under influence for so long before, do you consider yourself responsible enough when it comes to talking about this?
Joke or not, it's still wrong.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Ahahaha, ahahahaha.. No.
> Religion's got nothing to do with this. Don't reel it in.


You're acting the same as those religious nuts. Trying to keep something illegal because you're misguided mind is biased against it, and though science and logic proves you otherwise, you stubbornly stumble across your path thinking you're correct due to arrogance and ignorance. Religion in a nutshell, and anti-marijuana stances in a nutshell.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 2, 2013)

Here's an idea, do some research on how marijuana helps cancer patients tremendously.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> You're acting the same as those religious nuts. Trying to keep something illegal because you're misguided mind is biased against it, and though science and logic proves you otherwise, you stubbornly stumble across your path thinking you're correct due to arrogance and ignorance. Religion in a nutshell, and anti-marijuana stances in a nutshell.



Play the ball, not the player.



Lucy Bones said:


> No, they're wrong because literally every  point they've brought up has been FALSE. They claim to have loads of  proof but have literally none. Nada. Zero. Zip.
> 
> Weed is going to become legal in California next year for a reason  beyond people just like to get stoned. It has been deemed a safer  substance by most doctors, and in fact the only long-term negative  affects that have been linked to it is temporary lung damage from  smoking it.
> 
> In fact, in edible form, marijuana is 100% nutritious.




I've been absent from this discussion for a while, so could you summarise the rfalse claims which have been made? 

Furthermore you're latter assertion is incorrect. If users begin cannabis under the age of 18 a small but statistically significant drop in IQ is associated*, [social factors being isolated], so this merits consideration. 

A minimum age for instance. 

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19372456


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> No, they're wrong because literally every point they've brought up has been FALSE. They claim to have loads of proof but have literally none. Nada. Zero. Zip.


On the contrary. We have scientific studies and experiments to back our points up. All you have presented us with has been personal experience.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Ahahaha, ahahahaha.. No.
> Religion's got nothing to do with this. Don't reel it in.



I disagree. I think the "anti-drug" crowd has a lot in common with fundie right-wing religious bastards.

You all are a bunch of fucking idiots.


----------



## Jaseface (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> It will make a difference for the children under 18.


I have seen coworkers at the dairy queen I used to manage that where under the age of 18 get alcohol and smokes which are regulated without any problem what so ever so no it does not make a difference


Rilvor said:


> I seriously doubt you people claiming it does not affect one's ability to operate heavy machinery. There are a host of less mind-altering substances that do, so I mean really.


I believe it affects ones ability to operate any type of equipment.  As I mentioned even something as simple as ones own emotions can impair their ability to operate said equipment.  I just mentioned construction equipment because when I was in Wyoming I was a spotter for a track hoe on a pipeline it was my job to let the person operating the equipment to know of anything that was happening around them since all they could see is in front of them.  The operator loved to partake in using both legal and illegal substances and would still be under the influence of said substances.  I don't know how many times I almost got hit and those around me because the operator wasn't in the state of mind to be running the equipment and wouldn't listen to me when I would tell him to stop, slowdown, and such.  I was so glad when he hit an old underground telephone line that wasn't in use so he was forced to take an on the spot drug test he got fired and I was able to get a new operator to spot for.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> On the contrary. We have scientific studies and experiments to back our points up. All you have presented us with has been personal experience.



No, you don't. You have jack shit. You've done nothing but bring up medical opinions from very old doctors. The world is already slowly wising up to your bullshit and to the bullshit of those idiot doctors. One by one, states and countries across the world are legalizing marijuana. Just like how one by one they got rid of slavery, one by one they are abolishing racial discrimination, and one by one they are legalizing gay marriage. The world is realizing that your conservative mannerisms have no base and no logic. When it comes to studies for and studies against weed, the results for legal weed outweighs those against it every time. EVERY time. Slowly the world is gravitating from stubborn ignorance to open-minded intelligence. Hopefully you'll wise up as well.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Jaseface said:


> I have seen coworkers at the dairy queen I used to manage that where under the age of 18 get alcohol and smokes which are regulated without any problem what so ever so no it does not make a difference



It does make a difference, though. Not a huge one, but it does make one. It is easier for a child to get illegal drugs than it is for them to get legal ones, trust me.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> You're acting the same as those religious nuts. Trying to keep something illegal because you're misguided mind is biased against it, and though science and logic proves you otherwise, you stubbornly stumble across your path thinking you're correct due to arrogance and ignorance. Religion in a nutshell, and anti-marijuana stances in a nutshell.


Oh, OH. It took me this long to notice your trolling. Well played. I tend to converse about legalization in my school a bit too much and I sometimes have the tendency to be stubborn and let trolling go unnoticed.
Yet now you went too obvious.



Ricky said:


> I disagree. I think the "anti-drug" crowd has a lot in common with fundie right-wing religious bastards.


I've not noticed this because all I base my opinions on, are my opinions and scientific studies. I've not befriended any of the aforementioned sort of people, or joined communities with sole goal to fight legalization so I wouldn't know.
I'm just a dude with an opinion on this and it's clearly upsetting a fair amount of people :/


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Except you haven't, though. You're lying out your ass. You're just like those piece of shit fundies parading around talking about how we're all wrong and going to hell. Exactly the same. You have the same logic, same basis for believing why weed should be illegal. It's a mystery substance that you know nothing about, and because you don't like how it makes people act a little different, it should be illegal. Dude, fucking smoke a bowl or two before you make any judgments. Otherwise, you're as full of shit as Glenn Beck.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Apr 2, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Here's an idea, do some research on how marijuana helps cancer patients tremendously.


I know that, but I was talking solely about driving under the influence in the past few pages. How does that relate at all?




Ricky said:


> I disagree. I think the "anti-drug" crowd has a lot in common with fundie right-wing religious bastards.
> 
> You all are a bunch of fucking idiots.


That's a funny thing to read. I'm quite literally the most atheist person I know!


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

I was previously fine with the prospect of legal cannabis, provided law enforced minimum ages and other reasonable criteria.

 At the risk of an ad hominem argument the ravings of its supporters are really spoiling this prospect, the trend for some governments to legalise cannabis does not equate to individuals who oppose it being just like people who didn't want to 'move on from slavery'. 

This is irrelevant name calling and posturing, not justification, and it's off putting.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> I've not noticed this because all I base my opinions on, are my opinions and scientific studies. I've not befriended any of the aforementioned sort of people, or joined communities with sole goal to fight legalization so I wouldn't know.
> I'm just a dude with an opinion on this and it's clearly upsetting a fair amount of people :/



I don't really care about some random statistical study.

like, people who do drugs are generally more fucked up?

HOLY SHIT ALERT THE PRESS


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 2, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> I know that, but I was talking solely about driving under the influence in the past few pages. How does that relate at all?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a funny thing to read. I'm quite literally the most atheist person I know!


I wasnt just talking to you, it was for everyone to do.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Maybe we should make our government focus more on letting people make their own choices rather than tell everyone what to do. The illegalization of weed is some Fascist bullshit and it always has been. Only reason it's even illegal in the first place was because William R. Hearst spread a ton of lies about it so he could help destroy the hemp oil industry. 

All you idiots are protecting our oil crisis with your illegalization of hemp.


----------



## Lhune (Apr 2, 2013)

Ehh. Weed DOES make you slower to respond, comparable to driving whilst being very tired. While the latter isn't illegal it still isn't wise. That split second might just save your life or that of the person you were about to hit. Of course, talking extremes here and I'm really not in a good position to promote driving sober, but to pretend that it does absolutely NOTHING to your state of mind is just utter bull and you know it. Why else would you smoke the stuff if it does nothing? Certainly not because it tastes or smells so good.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I don't really care about some random statistical study.
> 
> like, people who do drugs are generally more fucked up?
> 
> HOLY SHIT ALERT THE PRESS


Sadly these studies are needed for the general populace to accept it. 
Otherwise they'd believe such weird things like pizza being a vegetable. Certain individuals lack the common sense you and I and many others have.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Smoking weed barely alters your mind. You still think generally the same on weed. It more alters your peripheral nervous system. It makes you feel relaxed and slightly euphoric. It's not like acid where you literally start thinking along different paths because of the drug.


----------



## Lhune (Apr 2, 2013)

You're dancing around the point, Lucy. You THINK the same sure, on that we probably all agree, but slower. Like you said, it alters your peripheral nervous system, in other words it slows down the process of stimuli being processed in the brain and your response as a result of them.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Yes, which is why driving while stoned is a bad idea.

Does nothing to prove why just being stoned is a bad idea.


----------



## Lhune (Apr 2, 2013)

I never said anything about smoking weed being a bad idea. By all means smoke if you want. We were talking about the combination of weed and driving which you seemed to think was perfectly fine, but perhaps I misread your posts.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Sadly these studies are needed for the general populace to accept it.
> Otherwise they'd believe such weird things like pizza being a vegetable. Certain individuals lack the common sense you and I and many others have.



_Pizza being a vegetable_?

I'm drunk, and that STILL sounds fucked up.

My only point here is that making weed illegal, when ALCOHOL is legal, is pretty fucked up.

There's no way around that.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

I don't think it's fine, I just don't think of it as as big a deal as drunk drivers. If a guy has had a single hit of a joint and needs to go somewhere fast, I'd be fine with him driving, because I know a small amount of marijuana isn't going to do shit to a decent driver. 

However, getting totally blazed and behind the wheel? Not a cool idea.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> I don't think it's fine, I just don't think of it as as big a deal as drunk drivers.* If a guy has had a single hit of a joint *and needs to go somewhere fast, I'd be fine with him driving, because I know a small amount of marijuana isn't going to do shit to a decent driver.
> 
> However, getting totally blazed and behind the wheel? Not a cool idea.



If a guy has had a single sip of a beer.

Obviously a legal limit would need to be set, similar to that which exists for alcohol.

With that in mind...why on earth was there even an argument about cannabis and driving if we all agree it would best be treated much like other drugs that increase reaction times?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Because these people seem to think that because smoking and driving is a bad idea, then smoking at all must be bad.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> Because these people seem to think that because smoking and driving is a bad idea, then smoking at all must be bad.



Does anyone actually think this?



Lhune said:


> I never said anything about smoking weed being a  bad idea. By all means smoke if you want. We were talking about the  combination of weed and driving which you seemed to think was perfectly  fine, but perhaps I misread your posts.



Evidently_ Lhune_ doesn't.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Does anyone actually think this?



It's been pretty much the basis of the entire argument on the "no legal weed" side of this thread.


----------



## JerryFoxcoon (Apr 2, 2013)

Marijuana has been proven to cause brain damage but in two specific conditions: 1) When brain is still developing and 2) In significant quantities and regular usage. I've read a scientific article about that. They also mentioned in that article that occasional usage was [likely] not problematic. Since weed isn't really addictive most people can limit themselves to a joint from time to time, which poses little risk if at all.

But that's the main reason why governments are slow to legalize it. No addiction -> smaller quantities bought -> less money. They don't give a fuck about how healthy or unhealthy it is. The big question for them is how LUCRATIVE it is. Other drugs are addictive or even very addictive but it's pretty much chemical crap that literally melts your brain cells, so -> too expensive in healthcare compared to their potential profit...


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> It's been pretty much the basis of the entire argument on the "no legal weed" side of this thread.


._. _Really?_ I very much doubt this.



JerryFoxcoon said:


> Marijuana has been proven to cause brain  damage but in two specific conditions: 1) When brain is still developing  and 2) In significant quantities and regular usage. I've read a  scientific article about that. They also mentioned in that article that  occasional usage was [likely] not problematic. Since weed isn't really  addictive most people can limit themselves to a joint from time to time,  which poses little risk if at all.
> 
> But that's the main reason why governments are slow to legalize it. No  addiction -> smaller quantities bought -> less money. They don't  give a fuck about how healthy or unhealthy it is. The big question for  them is how LUCRATIVE it is. Other drugs are addictive or even very  addictive but it's pretty much chemical crap that literally melts your  brain cells, so -> too expensive in healthcare compared to their  potential profit...



I agree, with my limited understanding having read a selection of reports on this topic, with the first paragraph. 

However the second paragraph is just...well it's conspiracy theory. There are numerous drugs which aren't addictive, such as aspirine, which are legal, so I think your premise is broken.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

JerryFoxcoon said:


> Marijuana has been proven to cause brain  damage but in two specific conditions: 1) When brain is still developing  and 2) In significant quantities and regular usage. I've read a  scientific article about that.



ORLY?

Please provide proof.



Fallowfox said:


> ._. _Really?_ I very much doubt this.



It was a point of contention.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> ORLY?
> 
> Please provide proof.
> 
> ...



General: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis 

specific to claims of effects on formative brain: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-009-1612-6

Still not entirely a settled debate.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Wikipedia is not a trusted site to be listed as a source.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> General: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis
> 
> specific to claims of effects on formative brain: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-009-1612-6
> 
> Still not entirely a settled debate.



uhh...

The first sentence.



> Though the long-term effects of cannabis have been studied, there remains much to be concluded.



Is there anything "conclusive" I can draw from there?

Please paraphrase why I should care.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 2, 2013)

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!


----------



## Lhune (Apr 2, 2013)

*sigh* Honestly, these threads about whether Marijuana is bad or not never go anywhere exactly for that reason. So long as nothing is concluded, the pro-weed people will shout that there's nothing wrong with it and the anti-weed people will shout that it's bad. Conspiracy theories and all sorts of randomly-pulled-out-of-ones-arse arguments included.

I can only speak of what I can see. And what I can see is that for ALL of the people I know (seriously, I gave it some thought but I literally mean ALL) who smoke weed _regularly_, it is really NOT doing any good. I can't say for sure if the drug itself is affecting them in a bad way, I'm sure it's a combination of things, but anyone with some sense can tell that it isn't helping them to be more productive, more likeable, easier to talk to or even happier. It's not a cheap drug to come by and from my point of view, the fact that it's both costly, not helping them move forward (in some cases it's even holding them back, in that it's keeping them locked inside their own little world and habits) and that there's a _chance_ that it might be bad, I would just choose not to smoke it. Or at least not regularly. But hey, that's just me. 

For those who are going to pull the "but you could say the same for alcohol!"-card, I do. I do prefer drinking over smoking myself simply because I don't like smoking, but I would still never promote drinking excessively. I suppose my point boils down to both alcohol and weed being fine so long as they're used in moderation and only to _enhance_, never out of boredom, habit or a sense of need (unless it's medical of course).


----------



## Heliophobic (Apr 2, 2013)

There are much worse things harming people in the world than fucking marijuana. Things that are actually legal.


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 2, 2013)

Gibby said:


> LE 420 SMOK WED ERY DAY
> 
> BTW I CUD QUIT IF I WANTED U GUIS





Hinalle K. said:


> Pretty big, scientific words coming from a pothead! :lol:



Isn't it funny how no matter _what_ pro-pot people say, anti-pot people invariably revert back to this type of kindergarten bullshit? 

I don't know what YOU GUYS are on, but the potheads in your mind are behaving very differently from the potheads in real life.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 2, 2013)

sunshyne said:


> Isn't it funny how no matter _what_ pro-pot people say, anti-pot people invariably revert back to this type of kindergarten bullshit?
> 
> I don't know what YOU GUYS are on, but the potheads in your mind are behaving very differently from the potheads in real life.



I actually said I'm pro-pot, read ahead you fool


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> Wikipedia is not a trusted site to be listed as a source.



Which is why I checked the page had thorough sources listed. It was not my only source either.



Ricky said:


> uhh...
> 
> The first sentence.
> 
> ...



Visit both sources and read more than 1 sentence in order to build views. 

_"Cannabis abuse is a risk factor for psychosis in predisposed people, it  can affect neurodevelopment during adolescence leading to schizophrenia,  and a dysregulation of the endocannabinoid system can participate in  schizophrenia. It is also worth noting that some specific cannabinoid  alterations can act as neuroprotectant for schizophrenia or can be a  psychopharmacogenetic rather than a vulnerability factor."_

a paraphase of the conclusions in the second source was available, _had you read it._

You should care becase you asked for evidence of Jerryfoxcoon's claims. Some of his claims are supported, although there remains some contention around situation and factors of predisposition etcetera.



sunshyne said:


> Isn't it funny how no matter _what_ pro-pot people say, anti-pot people invariably revert back to this type of kindergarten bullshit?
> 
> I don't know what YOU GUYS are on, but the potheads in your mind are  behaving very differently from the potheads in real life.



'Potheads', though a more appropriate word would be cannabis users, in real life in this thread alluded to driving under the influence. 

Asside from you misquoting someone who was in fact not anti-pot, any point on behaviour should be handled delicately when the behaviours already mentioned in this thread are so much more dangerous than 'kindergarten bullshit'. 

I don't think any individual user's behaviour is representitive and I'm not broadly 'anti-pot' as it were, but really the most trivial of stereotypes are rather humbled as a point of contention in comparrison.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Which is why I checked the page had thorough sources listed. It was not my only source either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Uhh...



> It is also worth noting that some specific cannabinoid alterations can act as neuroprotectant for schizophrenia or can be a psychopharmacogenetic rather than a vulnerability factor.



Yeah, okay :roll:


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Uhh...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, okay :roll:



In essence we're presented with the fact that cannabis is a drug and like other drugs in medicine it both has sideeffects and useful functions. Just as some people are allergic to certain drugs, or their personal chemistry affects the outcome the same is true of cannabis. 

Of course a specific cannbinoid drug being useful to treat schizophrenic tendencies does not justify undervaluing the fact many other cannibinoids can actually be deterimental. Much like ionising radiation is useful as well as harmful in medicine. 

Regardless of whether you are pro or anti pot Jerryfoxcoon's claims that cannabis sometimes has an adverse and detrimental affect on the brain are vindicated, and it's this which should be taken into account when considering say, whether cannibinoids should be strictly medical or social and recreational drugs too. We might decide only some types of cannibinoids are safe, or only some doses for instance.

I do feel this was all encompassed in 'read more than 1 sentence to build views,'.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Hey, this stuff makes people go crazy. It also helps crazy people go sane.

I don't buy it.

Actually, when you add the two together it doesn't amount to shit.

So, fuck your argument =P


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Hey, this stuff makes people go crazy. It also helps crazy people go sane.
> 
> I don't buy it.
> 
> ...



Ionising radiation increases the probability of Cancer. Ionising radiation also cures people of cancers. 

Do you not buy that on the same grounds of black-and-white-thinking? 'things are only Good or bad, not both'

Cannabis is a range of molecules, known as cannbinoids. Some assert harmful affects on brain chemistry, others can solve problems and some do both or do one or the other depending on a subject's personal chemistry. Many are likely to have no known effect eitherway. 

This should be taken into consideration if and when cannabis is legalised for use, both in medicine and for social and recreational purposes. It might be best to purify cannabis to get rid of some of the cannibinoids more likely to cause damage for instance. Or in medicine it might be useful to get rid of cannibinoids that can cause hallucinations, because not all people want those.


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 2, 2013)

Gibby said:


> I actually said I'm pro-pot, read ahead you fool



I read everything that you said. You appear to believe that the only people who smoke pot are addicts, who "need" it to get through their daily lives. Hence that post I quoted, or the one where you responded to someone who said marijuana had a therapeutic benefit for them, by calling them an addict and unhealthy (although naturally it's different for someone who requires Xanax or Prozac to deal with their depression...) You aren't "pro-pot", you're just intellectually honest enough to ultimately admit that the side effects of prohibition are worse than the side effects of the drug itself. 

You're just as pro-pot as Lucy Bones is _anti_-stoned driving (since he/she/they finally admitted that driving while stoned is dangerous, after a while of arguing for seemingly no reason)


----------



## Lhune (Apr 2, 2013)

Give up, Fallow. Ricky will never believe it's bad and even IF it's somehow proven I've no doubt he'll keep telling himself it's not bad or just choose not to believe the evidence. In the same way that the anti-pots will keep saying it's bad even if it's proven that it isn't. It's down to gut-feelings then. In the end I honestly don't even care if it's bad, it's obviously not SO BAD that it's killing people but it's not SO GOOD that everybody in the freakin' world is or should be on it either.

Oh, and let's not forget that the "potheads" will always WANT to defend their use of the drug, in the same way that anti-pots will always WANT it to be bad. You can find arguments for either side if you really want to, but you'll never convince anyone anyway.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Ionising radiation increases the probability of Cancer. Ionising radiation also cures people of cancers.
> 
> Do you not buy that on the same grounds of black-and-white-thinking? 'things are only Good or bad, not both'
> 
> ...



Well, yeah... there are factors =P

Weed is pretty benign.

Are you saying that weed makes people go crazy?


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Well, yeah... there are factors =P
> 
> Weed is pretty benign.
> 
> Are you saying that weed makes people go crazy?



Actually *you *said that it makes people go crazy, though I suspect in jest. ;3

I'm not making that claim. In some specific cases cannibinoids can increase the risk of psychosis. Just like in some specific cases antibiotics make people have allergic reactions or increase bacterial resistance etc numerous side effects. 

To simplify any medical bundle of issues to..._this _level of simplicity is simply criminal.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm not making that claim. In some specific cases cannibinoids can increase the risk of psychosis. Just like in some specific cases antibiotics make people have allergic reactions or increase bacterial resistance etc numerous side effects.



Well, OK. That doesn't seem like much of an argument against it though...

It has been shown to cause it, it's also been shown to prevent it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Well, OK. That doesn't seem like much of an argument against it though...



That's because I'm not constructing an argument from any 'side'. You asked for evidence of Jerry's claims and I am providing it. 

When you ask for evidence this is not a rhetorical question.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> That's because I'm not constructing an argument from any 'side'. You asked for evidence of Jerry's claims and I am providing it.
> 
> When you ask for evidence this is not a rhetorical question.



No. It has not "been proven to cause brain damage" in any case.

GTFO


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> No. It has not "been proven to cause brain damage" in any case.
> 
> GTFO





JerryFoxcoon said:


> Marijuana has been proven to cause brain  damage but in two specific conditions: 1) When brain is still developing  and 2) In significant quantities and regular usage. I've read a  scientific article about that. They also mentioned in that article that  occasional usage was [likely] not problematic. Since weed isn't really  addictive most people can limit themselves to a joint from time to time,  which poses little risk if at all.
> 
> But that's the main reason why governments are slow to legalize it. No  addiction -> smaller quantities bought -> less money. They don't  give a fuck about how healthy or unhealthy it is. The big question for  them is how LUCRATIVE it is. Other drugs are addictive or even very  addictive but it's pretty much chemical crap that literally melts your  brain cells, so -> too expensive in healthcare compared to their  potential profit...





Deliberately cutting short someone's statements is called 'quote mining', and it's a straw-man fallacy. 

Jerry made several claims, but his 'brain damage' claim was conditional. There is Good evidence that, particularly on the developing brain, cannabis can have a negative impact, especially on some individuals who are predisposed to psychosis for instance. Jerry's claim was vaguer than this, but it functions as a proof of concept; cannabis does have negative effects on the brain in some cases which merit some consideration. 
Other studies previously posted, such as those relating cannabis use with IQ, bolster his claim too. 

Jerry made other claims too, such as conspiracy trash, but this wouldn't make his other claims wrong anyway.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Deliberately cutting short someone's statements is called 'quote mining', and it's a straw-man fallacy.



Where is the straw-man? I said weed hasn't been show to cause brain damage.

That should really fall into the "no shit" category :roll:


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Where is the straw-man? I said weed hasn't been show to cause brain damage.
> 
> That should really fall into the "no shit" category :roll:



The claim 'weed causes brain damage' was oversimplified, when in fact it was conditional. In some cases cannabis _does_ precipitate psychosis and schizophrenic conditions. 

I might make the claim 'Oxygen kills you, if it's in a very high dose'. Or that 'peanuts cause irritation, if you have a mild allergy,' Leaving out the condition provides the wrong impression. It's easy to say 'peanuts aren't harmful what a load of bull *scoffs peanuts*!' but that's attacking a straw-man.

it ammounts to black'nwhite thinking.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

okay, let's make oxygen illegal

what were we talking about? :roll:


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> okay, let's make oxygen illegal
> 
> what were we talking about? :roll:



About how re-phrasing arguments poorly to make them sound silly is intellecutally dishonest.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> About how re-phrasing arguments poorly to make them sound silly is intellecutally dishonest.



I don't see any valid argument against legalizing weed.

It's shown to make some people crazy, and it's shown to make some crazy people sane.

So, that's a net effect of like... zero

What am I missing, here?


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I don't see any valid argument against legalizing weed.
> 
> It's shown to make some people crazy, and it's shown to make some crazy people sane.
> 
> So, that's a net effect of like... zero



You're massively oversimplifying your risk assessment. 

A doctor might insist that only they should be allowed to prescribe cannabis, because they are in a better position to determine who would benefit and suffer from specific cannibinoid drugs. 

A cannabis user might say that the probability of negative and permanent damage to a person over 18 is small, so they should be able to use cannabis if they want.

Do you see?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Intellectually dishonest? More like the people on the other side of the argument are more often than not intellectually insecure. It's not re-phrasing an argument, it's making an analogy. You know, to show them how full of shit they actually are.


----------



## Azure (Apr 2, 2013)

all yall are a bunch of buzz killingtons. alcohol can be a trigger for schizophrenia just as easily as pot can, as can family environment, pregnancy stress, and the color of the fucking drapes. sane people dont develop it magically by smoking pot. who give a shit about that as some sort of obstacle to legalization? TOBACCO CAUSES FUCKING CANCER AT HIGH FUCKING RATES AND YOU CAN BUY IT AT THE STORE FOR 4 FUCKING DOLLARS HOLY SHIT(this is my hamfisted attempt to show that potential risks have nothing to do with the legality of ANY PARTICULAR SUBSTANCE and that the court of public opinion(built upon a mound of ignorance, misinformation, and fearmongering) factors far more into such a thing). mountains out of molehills you gaiz, bunch of nanny-state cunts.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> Intellectually dishonest? More like the people on the other side of the argument are more often than not intellectually insecure. It's not re-phrasing an argument, it's making an analogy. You know, to show them how full of shit they actually are.



Making an analogy but abandoning or over simplifying key pieces of information is dishonest. 

For instance stating that 'it has good effects and bad effects therefore net=zero' would be massively MASSIVELY oversimplifying a medical issue. 

'well sir, this anti cancer drug could kill you and it could save you, so the net risk is 0; we'll try it out', might not be such a good approach if the chance of it saving you is 4% and the chance of dying 12%, and the doc' failed to mention it.



Azure said:


> all yall are a bunch of buzz killingtons. alcohol  can be a trigger for schizophrenia just as easily as pot can, as can  family environment, pregnancy stress, and the color of the fucking  drapes. sane people dont develop it magically by smoking pot. who give a  shit about that as some sort of obstacle to legalization? TOBACCO  CAUSES FUCKING CANCER AT HIGH FUCKING RATES AND YOU CAN BUY IT AT THE  STORE FOR 4 FUCKING DOLLARS HOLY SHIT(this is my hamfisted attempt to  show that potential risks have nothing to do with the legality of ANY  PARTICULAR SUBSTANCE and that the court of public opinion(built upon a  mound of ignorance, misinformation, and fearmongering) factors far more  into such a thing). mountains out of molehills you gaiz, bunch of  nanny-state cunts.


 
I rather agree. Ricky did however ask for evidence of jerry's claims. It's not like the study immediatley means cannabis should never ever be used. 

Furthermore risk does have a lot to do with legality, but it rather applies less to substances that have historically been legal for centuries before the risks were identified. For instance drugs synthesised today are put through more scrupulous standards than the first version of aspirin- salisilic acid, which causes stomach ulcers in high doses.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Right. People -- weed is bad.

THIS COULD BE YOUR LIFE


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

People think that people can't deal with risk themselves, we have to make everything illegal. Maybe instead of telling everyone drugs are bad, we should wise them up to responsible ways to deal with drugs, hm?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Making an analogy but abandoning or over simplifying key pieces of information is dishonest.
> 
> For instance stating that 'it has good effects and bad effects therefore net=zero' would be massively MASSIVELY oversimplifying a medical issue.
> 
> 'well sir, this anti cancer drug could kill you and it could save you, so the net risk is 0; we'll try it out', might not be such a good approach if the chance of it saving you is 4% and the chance of dying 12%, and the doc' failed to mention it.


There IS no key pieces of information to abandon. Anti-weed people are talking right out of their shitty assholes 100% of the time. Hence why they were compared to religious people earlier in the conversation.


----------



## JerryFoxcoon (Apr 2, 2013)

Jeez this thread isn't going anywhere... -_-  I won't even argue about my "conspiracy trash" as it's been called, it's not even worth it. I may just be retarded...

I'm just reporting what I've read in what I consider reliable sources, which could be condensed in something like this: "Weed isn't as toxic as many people think, it's nearly not as addictive as other drugs, and "toxicity" of weed is definitely not the reason why it's illegal". The rest is just my personal thoughts, correct or not.

I'm basically just saying that banning weed is pretty much useless.


----------



## Kosdu (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> There IS no key pieces of information to abandon. Anti-weed people are talking right out of their shitty assholes 100% of the time. Hence why they were compared to religious people earlier in the conversation.



The main piece of key evidence is how marijuana affects juvenielle brain development.


Just chill a bit and try to see both sides.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> The main piece of key evidence is how marijuana affects juvenielle brain development.
> 
> 
> Just chill a bit and try to see both sides.


We've already come to that agreement, but it still is nowhere near proof as to why marijuana should be illegal to adults 21 and up. It's just saying "This is one thing, and I'm using it to back up my own agenda because I'm a pathetic faggot."


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

JerryFoxcoon said:


> Jeez this thread isn't going anywhere... -_-  I won't even argue about my "conspiracy trash" as it's been called, it's not even worth it. I may just be retarded...
> 
> I'm just reporting what I've read in what I consider reliable sources, which could be condensed in something like this: "Weed isn't as toxic as many people think, it's nearly not as addictive as other drugs, and "toxicity" of weed is definitely not the reason why it's illegal". The rest is just my personal thoughts, correct or not.
> 
> I'm basically just saying that banning weed is pretty much useless.



The sources you read neglect numerous other reasons cannabis could be illegal, from vestigal moral or religious inclinations to incorrect or falsified studies of health impacts to monopolies on pain killer markets etcetera

there are no grounds to appeal to conspiracy on the grounds of addictiveness especially as there are numerous drugs which aren't addictive and which are widely and legally used.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> The main piece of key evidence is how marijuana affects juvenielle brain development.



I thought it was kind of a given that legalization implies 18+


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> There IS no key pieces of information to abandon. Anti-weed people are talking right out of their shitty assholes 100% of the time. Hence why they were compared to religious people earlier in the conversation.



The effect on developing brains is a key piece of information
The effect on people with predisposition to psychosis is a key piece of information
The effects different versions of cannbinoids have is a key piece of information
The strength and frequency of use is a key piece of information
Observed decrease in IQ resulting from heavy use is a key piece of information

etcetera

big medical issues do not condense into witty comebacks. They make huge boring paragraphs and medical reports which lazy users of the internet cannot be bothered to read.



Ricky said:


> I thought it was kind of a given that legalization implies 18+



Nope. Alcohol is legal in the UK for any body over 5, provided it is given to you by a parent or guardian.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Hell, I say 21+ with medical legality opportunities for younger ages who need it. Kids shouldn't do drugs, but adults have the ability to think for themselves and determine risk. Well, most do, anyway.


----------



## Azure (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I rather agree. Ricky did however ask for evidence of jerry's claims. It's not like the study immediatley means cannabis should never ever be used.
> 
> Furthermore risk does have a lot to do with legality, but it rather applies less to substances that have historically been legal for centuries before the risks were identified. For instance drugs synthesised today are put through more scrupulous standards than the first version of aspirin- salisilic acid, which causes stomach ulcers in high doses.


well of course traditional drugs are going to get the pass in many situations, but if that is the rubric by which something is legal or no, logically drugs that pose significantly less risk that the ones that are pushed on us today ought to be able to join the party? i mean, in all honesty, the only reason that cannabis was made illegal in the US was because hemp posed a massive threat paper manufacturers, and mexican immigrants wouldnt go the fuck home, so william randolph hearst(the father of bullshit journalism) made it his pet project to slander minorities, play upon peoples deep seated fears, and make a giant wad of cash for doing so. its a really easy trail to follow as well. but people, being themselves and easily led astray from even the most obvious of conclusions, tote things like 

this

or this

or this giant pile of steaming bullshit propaganda unit

as some sort of useful truth. or theyre just lazy and enjoy nasty alcohol. or whatever the fuck. either way, imma smoke weed till i die and aint nobody gonna stop me. not uncle sam, not the state of california, not officer bodisco who arrested me, not my daddy, not a got dang motherlover on this earth. cuz i can grow that shit just about anywhere.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> The effect on developing brains is a key piece of information


 No it isn't. It's already been determined drugs are bad for kids. We've known that for years.


Fallowfox said:


> The effect on people with predisposition to psychosis is a key piece of information


 An incredibly small increment, just like ALL tmedical treatments. 


Fallowfox said:


> The effects different versions of cannbinoids have is a key piece of information


 Which the anti-weed people don't even know anything about. They couldn't even tell me the difference between an indica or a sativa. 


Fallowfox said:


> Observed decrease in IQ resulting from heavy use is a key piece of information


 That's bullshit. 100% bullshit.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Nope. Alcohol is legal in the UK for any body over 5, provided it is given to you by a parent or guardian.



Wow, that's just like Jamaica.

I think there should be even stricter guidelines on alcohol.

My parents let me drink when I was 11. Look how I turned out :roll:


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> No it isn't. It's already been determined drugs are bad for kids. We've known that for years.
> An incredibly small increment, just like ALL tmedical treatments.
> Which the anti-weed people don't even know anything about. They couldn't even tell me the difference between an indica or a sativa.
> That's bullshit. 100% bullshit.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19372456
100% bullshit?

and furthermore not 'all' medical treatments have small effects, but that's a rather salient point. 

Stop insisting anybody who disagrees with anything you see about cannabis is 'anti weed'. I support legal and safe use of cannabis provided you don't smoke it anywhere near me.



Ricky said:


> Wow, that's just like Jamaica.
> 
> I think there should be even stricter guidelines on alcohol.
> 
> My parents let me drink when I was 11. Look how I turned out




Currently the UK's alcohol usage is pretty diar, but other european countries with similar laws are fairing better. 

Personally I've had alcohol as long as I remember. Never been drunk though.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Oh
My
God

QUIT BRINGING UP CHILD STUDIES. WE KNOW DRUGS ARE BAD FOR KIDS.

Holy flapjacks christ, could you bring up something RELEVANT for once?


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

I recognize that fat, ugly bitch.

You've posted that link before, haven't you? :roll:

Also, 18+


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> Oh
> My
> God
> 
> ...



Correct me if I am wrong but the study was not exclusively focused on those under 18. People starting cannabis under 18 suffered a permanent decrease in IQ, those afterwards did not, but heavy usage did result in lower iq scores.



Ricky said:


> I recognize that fat, ugly bitch.
> 
> You've posted that link before, haven't you?
> 
> ...


 
I keep posting it because everyone seems to read the first two or three sentences and draw all their conclusions from that.

'they found that those who persistently used cannabis - smoking it at  least four times a week year after year through their teens, 20s and, in  some cases, their 30s - suffered a decline in their IQ.' from the article

quoting from the video 'the cognitive loss was reversed if they stopped, but only if they started after age 18,'.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Correct me if I am wrong but the study was not exclusively focused on those under 18. People starting cannabis under 18 suffered a permanent decrease in IQ, those afterwards did not, but heavy usage did result in lower iq scores.



It's a statistical study that didn't take demographics into account (well enough).


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

IQ very flexible and non-static term. People may score lower on an IQ test siomply because the questions are more difficult and they may not actually know the answer. Not because of weed, but because IQ tests are fucking _useless._

They do nothing to measure intelligence. It's just a test to see how well people are at paying attention and memorizing facts.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> It's a statistical study that didn't take demographics into account (well enough).



And what grounds do you make that assertion upon? Are you just moving goal posts?



Lucy Bones said:


> IQ very flexible and non-static term. People  may score lower on an IQ test siomply because the questions are more  difficult and they may not actually know the answer. Not because of  weed, but because IQ tests are fucking _useless._
> 
> They do nothing to measure intelligence. It's just a test to see how  well people are at paying attention and memorizing facts.



This is why experiments on IQ and its influences involve hundreds or thousands of people, which reduces random error. 

iq tests are good indicators of intelligence in general populations, contrary to recent mythology that they're useless, but are not the gold-standard in measuring any individual's talents in all subjects.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Apr 2, 2013)

I've only just noticed nearly everyone defending MJ on this thread with their teeth and bones are from California, of all places.

Hehe. That's funny. Now it all makes sense.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Then there's the demographic Ricky is looking for. Area of testing, etc.

The average IQ in New York is much higher than the average IQ in Mississippi.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> And what grounds do you make that assertion upon? Are you just moving goal posts?



We've been through this, already =P


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

Hinalle, you've done nothing but let shit burble from your mouth throughout this entire thread. Your presence is no longer needed.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> We've been through this, already =P



This fails to explain impermanent effects. Why should IQ 'bounce back' for people who stopped smoking having started over 18? Presumeably there _isn't_ a large and uniform change in a majority of their social situations within this period of testing.



Lucy Bones said:


> Hinalle, you've done nothing but let shit  burble from your mouth throughout this entire thread. Your presence is  no longer needed.



Look who's talkin'


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

It's because around the age of 18, most people are thinking for themselves and can determine that weed isn't that big of an issue. Never has been, never will be.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> This fails to explain impermanent effects. Why should IQ 'bounce back' for people who stopped smoking having started over 18? Presumeably there _isn't_ a large and uniform change in a majority of their social situations within this period of testing.



It fails to explain *anything*

I don't care about some statistical study that shows a marginal drop in *anything*

All of that could be attributed to demographics.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> It fails to explain *anything*
> 
> I don't care about some statistical study that shows a marginal drop in *anything*
> 
> All of that could be attributed to demographics.



If you think there is a long term demographic divide this may well explain why the iq of younger or heavier users is lower. 

It does not explain why those who stop, having started before 18, do not benefit from a resurgence in their iq scores while those who started later _do_. That fact is instrumental in suggesting it's very likely cannabis is the independant variable.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

This just in, drugs can be harmful for minors.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> If you think there is a long term demographic  divide this may well explain why the iq of younger or heavier users is  lower.
> 
> It does not explain why those who stop, having started before 18, do not  benefit from a resurgence in their iq scores while those who started  later _do_. That fact is instrumental in suggesting it's very likely cannabis is the independant variable.



... aside from a life-changing event that makes them not want to be stoners all the time =P


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> ... aside from a life-changing event that makes them not want to be stoners all the time =P



And every single one is expected to have a life changing event that causes an increase in iq approx' to that they previously lost when they decided to be use cannabis over 18...*but doesn't work if they started under 18*?



Lucy Bones said:


> This just in, drugs can be harmful for minors.



This just in, being an adult doesn't make you immune to the negative effects of cannabis.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Okay, so we agree weed is bad for kids.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Okay, so we agree weed is bad for kids.



The test did more than that. Cannabis was reasonably established as the variable affecting the iq. Hence you should be aware that using cannabis could be decreasing your iq. 

[again this is all irrelevant to whether you think cannabis should or should not be legal, I just don't want to see myths, pseudoscience or denial of reasonable evidence propogated in order to justify either of the positions]


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> The test did more than that. Cannabis was reasonably established as the variable affecting the iq. Hence you should be aware that using cannabis could be decreasing your iq.



Let's see... I have no college degree, yet make 6 figures.

The only reason I can do that is by being smarter than everyone else.

Maybe I'm just an outlier, but it didn't hurt me that bad ;3


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> The test did more than that. Cannabis was reasonably established as the variable affecting the iq. Hence you should be aware that using cannabis could be decreasing your iq.
> 
> [again this is all irrelevant to whether you think cannabis should or should not be legal, I just don't want to see myths, pseudoscience or denial of reasonable evidence propogated in order to justify either of the positions]



_"The effect was only noticed in those who started smoking cannabis as adolescents."_

That's from the article you posted. Whatever other inferences you want to make out of it, those were the findings of the study. There is NO scientific evidence whatsoever that long-term cannabis use permanently affects the fully-developed adult brain (and a fair amount of scientific evidence to the contrary, actually).

So when you say there are two good points that legalization advocates are failing to acknowledge - the effect on the developing brain, and permanent brain damage from long term use - you are actually only talking about ONE good point. Because in the absence of a still-developing brain, cannabis use simply _does not_ cause irreversible changes to the brain. That's fairly well accepted in the scientific community these days. And the fact that it CAN permanently impair the developing teenage brain is actually a great reason to legalize, because use by minors would almost certainly be less common if cannabis were part of a legal, regulated market instead of peddled in school hallways.


----------



## Azure (Apr 2, 2013)

i did some research. apparently heroin use as an adolescent does not lower the iq or impair brain development. GUESS I MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE, SILLY POTHEADS


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 2, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> I've only just noticed nearly everyone defending MJ on this thread with their teeth and bones are from California, of all places.
> 
> Hehe. That's funny. Now it all makes sense.



And the one calling it an unadulterated poison and claiming that it renders its users semi-retarded is from a country where drinking alcohol is illegal, and they behead people for blasphemy... We call that a two-way street.


----------



## Artillery Spam (Apr 2, 2013)

Seriously, why should the legal age for weed be 21? 

Does anyone _actually_ have a good reason or is everyone following the bullshit and soccer mom-advocated hilariousness that is the minimum drinking age?


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 2, 2013)

I support legalization and always will, because even if one were to concede EVERY SINGLE disputed point in this thread - that marijuana can permanently affect the adult brain, that it can lower adult IQ, that it can cause legitimate physical addiction, that it can cause depression or schizophrenia, etc. - the fact is, all of the terrible things that directly result from the illegal marijuana trade would still be worse than that. Here, take some people who would still be walking and breathing today if marijuana were a legal substance:

http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/Tulare-Home-Invasion-187---JYB-199949461.html
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/bou...e-boulder-man-among-3-killed-botched-northern
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-newman/get-busted-for-marijuana-_b_1199896.html

That took me less than five minutes. Next week it will be a new group of dead people. Whatever your feelings on the topic, these people would still be alive if marijuana were a legitimate industry instead of a black market. Period, end of story. People don't die in the tobacco game, or the alcohol game (anymore). There's no reason to think they'd keep dying in the marijuana trade if it were brought above-ground. You can say things like "who cares, they're drug dealers and users" (although that would discount the dozens of cops who have been killed by people trying to escape marijuana charges) -- however, to me, preserving human life is worth the _relatively_ minor ills of marijuana abuse.

This doesn't even get into some of the other, very real, human tragedies that happen when you make such a commonly-used substance a crime to possess. Like the countless people who ARE occasional users, and never ran any risk of screwing up their lives from marijuana use, but oops... they got pulled over with it in their pocket one time, a cop smelled it, and now they're kicked out of school and can't get a halfway-decent job. THAT is infuriating, it's cruel, and it makes criminals and deadbeats out of people who otherwise wouldn't be one.

It's just that if you stack all of the horrible, appalling things that currently DO happen as a result of marijuana prohibition and would not happen otherwise, against all of the horrible, appalling things that COULD happen if marijuana were legalized... it's not even close. In the theory of competing evils, marijuana should be legal. And people who argue otherwise fail to take into account all of the sickeningly depressing consequences of our never-ending quest to eradicate what it, at the end of the day, a common fucking weed...

I'm not one to argue that weed is entirely harmless. I actually think there is something to the whole depression/anxiety thing from long-term use. I had smoked fairly regularly for years until last month, when I had a series of panic attacks and a major depressive episode. But here's the thing... I recognized there was a problem in my life, I was receptive to the possibility that my heavy marijuana use might be the cause of the problem, and I stopped. Just like that! Because I wanted to and I believed that continuing to smoke might be making me depressed. I stopped entirely for a week, and I didn't have withdrawal symptoms or move on to other drugs. I was just irritable and restless for a few days. And after a few days clean, my anxiety and depression faded away more quickly than it had appeared. I still smoke occasionally, but I'll never go back to the levels I was at, and I believe that's a good thing.


----------



## Willow (Apr 2, 2013)

I still say the legal age should be 18 or 21 for the above reason. Because in my experience with a good majority of teenage stoners, they're typically obnoxious assholes and really fucking stupid to say the least. 

Aside from that, adulthood is generally around the time the body is done maturing. Of course there's variations but for the vast majority, it's within that range. 


			
				sunshyne said:
			
		

> It's just that if you stack all of the horrible, appalling things that currently DO happen as a result of marijuana prohibition and would not happen otherwise, against all of the horrible, appalling things that COULD happen if marijuana were legalized... it's not even close. In the theory of competing evils, marijuana should be legal. And people who argue otherwise fail to take into account all of the sickeningly depressing consequences of our never-ending quest to eradicate what it, at the end of the day, a common fucking weed...


To be fair, just saying "marijuana should be legal because more bad things happen here than here" is a really weak argument. Certainly people who are 100% for legalization and those 100% against it will fail to see the other side of the argument, at least in a logical way. The devil can cite scripture for his purpose and that is basically what you guys are doing. That's just from reading the last few pages. 

Not to say it shouldn't be legal though. 



> I stopped entirely for a week, and I didn't have withdrawal symptoms or move on to other drugs. I was just irritable and restless for a few days.





> I was just irritable and restless for a few days.


I hate to break it to you but those are withdrawal symptoms. Not very strong ones though but if you haven't been smoking for a significant period of time like say, several years, they probably wouldn't be.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Willow said:


> I hate to break it to you but those are withdrawal symptoms. Not very strong ones though but if you haven't been smoking for a significant period of time like say, several years, they probably wouldn't be.



There is a shady definition of "addiction" and "withdrawal symptoms."

You would recover off pot like you would recover from playing video games.

I am going to die if I stop drinking.

I break out in sweats and start shaking and convulsing 5-8 hours after I stop.

Maybe I have a different definition of "addiction" than you do.


----------



## Azure (Apr 2, 2013)

Willow said:


> withdrawal symptoms.


here are some REAL withdrawal symptoms

do that for a month and get back to me


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

or this...

even though it doesn't happen to everyone


----------



## Azure (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> or this...
> 
> even though it doesn't happen to everyone


shake it like a polaroid picture


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 2, 2013)

Willow said:


> I still say the legal age should be 18 or 21 for the above reason. Because in my experience with a good majority of teenage stoners, they're typically obnoxious assholes and really fucking stupid to say the least.
> 
> Aside from that, adulthood is generally around the time the body is done maturing. Of course there's variations but for the vast majority, it's within that range.
> 
> ...



How is it a "really weak argument"? Although neither alternative is perfect, all things considered, one alternative is better than the other. That's not a "weak argument", that's the essence of policy-making.


----------



## Willow (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> You would recover off pot like you would recover from playing video games.
> 
> I am going to die if I stop drinking.
> 
> I break out in sweats and start shaking and convulsing 5-8 hours after I stop.





Azure said:


> here are some REAL withdrawal symptoms
> 
> do that for a month and get back to me


My favorite part of this is you're both comparing symptoms for two totally different things. Way to throw some extremes in there to prove a point. 

Now if I had to liken the withdrawal symptoms for frequent marijuana use, I'd compare it more to caffeine withdrawal. 
I mean, more destructive substances are bound to have more destructive consequences. That much should be obvious. 

Buut, withdrawal is withdrawal either way.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Azure said:


> shake it like a polaroid picture



I never die.

Still, it's a complete night-and-day scenario when compared with pot.

Weed isn't any more addictive than video games.



Willow said:


> Now if I had to liken the withdrawal symptoms for frequent marijuana use, I'd compare it more to caffeine withdrawal.



Okay, but like... Legality :roll:


----------



## Ranguvar (Apr 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Weed isn't any more addictive than video games.


It's true, I haven't played a video game in a week and I am all irritable and shit. I also can't fucking sleep.


----------



## Avindur (Apr 2, 2013)

If the government is able to tax it and make money, they won't give a flying shit about it. But I don't see any problems so long as it isn't on the job.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2013)

Green_Knight said:


> It's true, I haven't played a video game in a week and I am all irritable and shit. I also can't fucking sleep.



INDULGE ;3


----------



## Willow (Apr 3, 2013)

Green_Knight said:


> It's true, I haven't played a video game in a week and I am all irritable and shit. I also can't fucking sleep.


oh sigh 



Ricky said:


> Okay, but like... Legality :roll:


Yes legality is a thing and it's relevant to what I just said how?
Oh right, coffee's legal


----------



## Ricky (Apr 3, 2013)

Willow said:


> Yes legality is a thing and it's relevant to what I just said how?
> Oh right, coffee's legal



Well yeah. There's a certain point where something becomes harmful enough to be made illegal.

BUT -

I'm gonna take a step back here. You are INCORRECT in your analogy.

Caffeine withdrawal has physical symptoms associated with it.

UNLIKE cannabis.

Take that, motherfucker =P


----------



## Willow (Apr 3, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Well yeah. There's a certain point where something becomes harmful enough to be made illegal.
> 
> BUT -
> 
> ...


That's cool. Still not sure what that's supposed to prove. 

I was only pointing out that saying "I didn't have any withdrawal symptoms but..." but then list some side effects of quitting after a year or so is just a tiny bit contradictory. 
I forget who I'm arguing with though.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 3, 2013)

Willow said:


> That's cool. Still not sure what that's supposed to prove.
> 
> I was only pointing out that saying "I didn't have any withdrawal symptoms but..." but then list some side effects of quitting after a year or so is just a tiny bit contradictory.
> I forget who I'm arguing with though.



Anything can be "addictive." That is the point.


----------



## Willow (Apr 3, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Anything can be "addictive." That is the point.


And practically anything can have withdrawal too. And surprisingly enough, irritability is a pretty common one
That's what I was getting at.


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 3, 2013)

Avindur said:


> If the government is able to tax it and make money, they won't give a flying shit about it. But I don't see any problems so long as it isn't on the job.



The government currently can tax it, and make money, and they give a VERY BIG shit about it evidently


----------



## Artillery Spam (Apr 3, 2013)

Willow said:


> I still say the legal age should be 18 or 21 for the above reason. Because in my experience with a good majority of teenage stoners, they're typically obnoxious assholes and really fucking stupid to say the least.
> 
> Aside from that, adulthood is generally around the time the body is done maturing. Of course there's variations but for the vast majority, it's within that range.




Your body is pretty much through growing at 18-21, but your brain doesn't stop cooking until around age 25 or so. As you said: some people get done sooner while others get done later. An age 25 requirement for weed or booze would make more sense than an age 18 or 21 requirement. 

Actually according to http://mentalfloss.com/article/19437/why-drinking-age-21 they got the whole 21 thing from some sort of old-ass European law dating back to when knights were roaming around (I honestly hope that link is bullshit)

The amount of 18-21 dumbshits that smoke weed probably make up half of the total 'young' dumbshits that smoke weed. I honestly don't see any difference between an 18 year old and someone who is 21.


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 3, 2013)

Right at this point, Lucy Bones's insults at anyone who isn't as rabidly pro-pot as they are is actually putting me _off_ supporting any marijuana legalisation, despite the fact that on an intellectual level I would otherwise support it. 

Honestly, comments like "_Anti-weed people are talking right out of their shitty assholes 100% of the time_", "_It's just saying 'This is one thing, and I'm using it to back up my own agenda because I'm a pathetic faggot_'", and other such gems are arguments for keeping the damn stuff *illegal* because the last thing society needs are more stoners bragging about how they can drive while high and acting like a bunch of rabid fundamentalists against anyone daring to criticise the almighty weed!

Stoners are their own worst enemy when it comes to marijuana legalisation.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 3, 2013)

I still just laugh at the fact that alcohol is perfectly legal and still causes an absolute shit ton more deaths per year compared to smoking weed.  Oh gummint you so cray cray.

Reading the past page of this thread gave me a headache, I'm going to bread.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 3, 2013)

sunshyne said:


> _"The effect was only noticed in those who started smoking cannabis as adolescents."_
> 
> That's from the article you posted. Whatever other inferences you want to make out of it, those were the findings of the study. There is NO scientific evidence whatsoever that long-term cannabis use permanently affects the fully-developed adult brain (and a fair amount of scientific evidence to the contrary, actually).
> 
> So when you say there are two good points that legalization advocates are failing to acknowledge - the effect on the developing brain, and permanent brain damage from long term use - you are actually only talking about ONE good point. Because in the absence of a still-developing brain, cannabis use simply _does not_ cause irreversible changes to the brain. That's fairly well accepted in the scientific community these days. And the fact that it CAN permanently impair the developing teenage brain is actually a great reason to legalize, because use by minors would almost certainly be less common if cannabis were part of a legal, regulated market instead of peddled in school hallways.



Your quotation concerns an 8 point drop in iq that is not fully recoverable. That's actually a significant drop for a person of average iq. I previously said 'small', but I'd like to correct myself. 

'The study reported 'Those who started using marijuana regularly or heavily *after age 18* showed* minor declines*.''

http://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida...ctor/2013/03/marijuanas-lasting-effects-brain

People who started after 18 weren't as badly affected but the study suggested they still suffered a decline in iq, and this is what I was informing ricky about. 

I'm not claiming that the effect is irriversible either...I actually overtly stated the opposite, so I of course agree.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 3, 2013)

I insult because I don't give a fuck. All of the anti-legalization claims are always the same shit, different voices. They've been riding on the same nonsense claims since the 1950's, it's pretty pathetic.


----------



## Aleu (Apr 3, 2013)

Guys if you can't tell the difference between chemically addictive substances and psychologically addictive substances and liken them to each other, we have a problem.
When people say "X is addictive", they're not saying general addictiveness. They're saying that it is CHEMICALLY addictive. Meaning that there is something in there that makes the brain physically desire it.
There is a difference between coffee and marijuana and that is chemical addictiveness. Caffeine is addictive in that aspect. Marijuana is not. If anything, marijuana would be only habit forming such as video games or gambling.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 3, 2013)

+1 science for Aleu


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 3, 2013)

Who was making claims about addictivity?


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Apr 3, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Guys if you can't tell the difference between chemically addictive substances and psychologically addictive substances and liken them to each other, we have a problem.
> When people say "X is addictive", they're not saying general addictiveness. They're saying that it is CHEMICALLY addictive. Meaning that there is something in there that makes the brain physically desire it.
> There is a difference between coffee and marijuana and that is chemical addictiveness. Caffeine is addictive in that aspect. Marijuana is not. If anything, marijuana would be only habit forming such as video games or gambling.


 Yep, because people smoke it when they want to. They don't crave it, though it does become a habit. For me, coffee becomes a habit more than an addiction, although, I'd like to convince myself that it's an addiction, because coffee taste so good! XD. I do notice marijuana is more of a recreational thing, rather than a hard drug. I personally do not want to smoke it, because I heard it has some negative effects on certain people, for instance, HPPD, visual snow (which I have), and other psychological problems. I have a lot of the symptoms that people develop after consuming marijuana, which is why I don't trust it even though it has its benefits. Just like all drugs, it affects people differently. Maybe if I find out what it does to the brain, I can find out what's affecting my brain, since the drug shares a lot of similar effects. I mean like what's going on with the chemicals in my brain. Kind of interesting, mine developed after severe anxiety, and from what I am hearing, it has something to do with my nerves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_perception_disorder#Symptoms


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 3, 2013)

I only have marijuana cravings simply because I'm a bit of a fuckhead when I'm sober. After a few hits I'm much more mellow and much more easy going out amongst society. Anxiety problems suck.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 3, 2013)

On a slightly irrelevant tangent Coca leaves are still treated as a hard drug. 

Caffeine in its pure form is lethal. Coca in its biological form is not particulalry, to my knowledge, harmful. Indeed its a common place drug in high altitudes that people take day in day out their whole lives. 

So I wonder why Coca isn't in cakes and drinks like caffeine is [well excepting the era when it was in cocacoal].


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 3, 2013)

Well, on a federal level, while marijuana is a class 1 narcotic, cocaine is class 2. Meaning that in a sense, cocaine is more legal than marijuana, due to its use in surgery and such.


----------



## Aleu (Apr 3, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Who was making claims about addictivity?


The argument between Willow and Ricky.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 3, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> Well, on a federal level, while marijuana is a class 1 narcotic, cocaine is class 2. Meaning that in a sense, cocaine is more legal than marijuana, due to its use in surgery and such.



In the UK, I may be wrong, but I think cocaine is class A and cannabis is class B.


----------



## wtfjinx (Apr 3, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> Well, on a federal level, while marijuana is a class 1 narcotic, cocaine is class 2. Meaning that in a sense, cocaine is more legal than marijuana, due to its use in surgery and such.



The FDA ranks marijuana as a Schedule I due to there has been no definite controlled tests to prove it has any medical benefits (testing undergoing at this time with glaucoma and cancer therapies), whereas cocaine is a schedule II due to Cocaine Hydrochloride being used as a topical anesthetic.


----------



## Golden (Apr 3, 2013)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Isn't this with just about any drug?  Seldom have I heard of a junkie who was forced to try something.


  Sorry, I should have clarified. The decision to CONTINUE doing it is pure choice. Of course, the decision to first do heroin is the choice of a junkie. The decision to continue doing it, not so much. Addiction is a health problem and not a choice.


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 4, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> I insult because I don't give a fuck.



And you seriously want to convince others that your position is a right and reasonable one? You must give some kind of a fuck as you actually bothered to respond... but hey, whatever floats your miasma-filled cloud of pot smoke.


----------



## Misstoxin (Apr 4, 2013)

wtfjinx said:


> The FDA ranks marijuana as a Schedule I due to there has been no definite controlled tests to prove it has any medical benefits (testing undergoing at this time with glaucoma and cancer therapies), whereas cocaine is a schedule II due to Cocaine Hydrochloride being used as a topical anesthetic.



I'm glad you cleared this up, because if you hadn't, I would have.

As far as legalization, it's pretty much legal here on the west coast of the US. With medical marijuana cards so easy to obtain in CA, people have a general nonchalant attitude about weed. Not only that, I feel like 90% of people I've met since I've moved to CA either smoke themselves, or don't give a rat's ass that other people do. Most of them don't even care if you smoke around them. Oregon is incredibly lax about it too in my experience. 

I will say the difference in mentalities about the issue varies drastically from west coast to east coast. Having lived in both, it's pretty mind blowing. So far, I haven't encountered any real issues with anything involving marijuana that would have turned out any differently, legal or not. So I guess the question of legality doesn't really pertain to someone in my situation, because it basically is legal, medical or not, in CA. I dunno', I guess just food for thought...


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 4, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Guys if you can't tell the difference between chemically addictive substances and psychologically addictive substances and liken them to each other, we have a problem.
> When people say "X is addictive", they're not saying general addictiveness. They're saying that it is CHEMICALLY addictive. Meaning that there is something in there that makes the brain physically desire it.
> There is a difference between coffee and marijuana and that is chemical addictiveness. Caffeine is addictive in that aspect. Marijuana is not. If anything, marijuana would be only habit forming such as video games or gambling.



I think there's less difference than you think... What you're talking about is whether or not a substance has a _physiological_ effect. Obviously, substances that have a physiological effect on humans are more likely to cause addiction, because their absence normally causes a corresponding physiological effect. Like you said, they make your brain (and sometimes your body) cry out that they _need_ that substance. But don't forget that your brain is capable of making some very powerful, physiologically active, compounds all on its own. Whether it's eating a ton of junk food, playing your favorite video game, gambling, having sex, sucking your thumb, whatever -- the point is, people can engage in those behaviors to the point where they serve as a trigger for your brain releasing dopamine and other "feel good" chemicals. And when you suddenly stop engaging in those activities, your brain doesn't produce those same types of compounds as often, and it feels mentally and physically awful. A.k.a withdrawal symptoms.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 4, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> And you seriously want to convince others that your position is a right and reasonable one? You must give some kind of a fuck as you actually bothered to respond... but hey, whatever floats your miasma-filled cloud of pot smoke.



I respond to_ lots of things_ and don't give a damn >.>

To be honest, I care about nothing on this entire site. It is a time-sink for when I'm procrastinating in work. That said, I didn't see anything intriguing either. There was like, one study with the drop in IQ that looks like every other anti-drug study out there. I'm skeptical and am not very impressed.



sunshyne said:


> I think there's less difference than you  think... What you're talking about is whether or not a substance has a _physiological_  effect. Obviously, substances that have a physiological effect on  humans are more likely to cause addiction, because their absence  normally causes a corresponding physiological effect. Like you said,  they make your brain (and sometimes your body) cry out that they _need_  that substance. But don't forget that your brain is capable of making  some very powerful, physiologically active, compounds all on its own.  Whether it's eating a ton of junk food, playing your favorite video  game, gambling, having sex, sucking your thumb, whatever -- the point  is, people can engage in those behaviors to the point where they serve  as a trigger for your brain releasing dopamine and other "feel good"  chemicals. And when you suddenly stop engaging in those activities, your  brain doesn't produce those same types of compounds as often, and it  feels mentally and physically awful. A.k.a withdrawal symptoms.



I'm not going to buy that definition of "addictive" because then EVERYTHING is addictive and it is pointless to even say it.

I'm going with addictive implies physiological withdrawal symptoms.


----------



## Lhune (Apr 4, 2013)

*Ricky; *I think the point was more that if you're going to act like a prick who doesn't give a fuck then it's really difficult to have any kind of a serious, adult discussion. You're so keen on defending the drug and so quick to dismiss any possible negatives, that combined with you "not giving a fuck" (same goes for Lucy) to me it just seems like you're both so blindly pro-pot that no matter what kind of research anyone throws at you you're not even going to read it through, you'll just mark it bullshit and move on to shouting things that we all already agree on (marijuana isn't worse than alcohol, moderate use is fine, it doesn't make people crazy, etc.). Stupid little pictures and supposedly funny YouTube clips included. 

I admire FallowFox for their patience, but I honestly wouldn't have wasted any more time on you. You're really not helping your case, and much like Mayfurr I actually don't have a problem with weed at all, but people like you almost make me despise it. This "fuck the world" attitude you have is why a lot of people see weed as a (recreational) drug for the irresponsible and stupid.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 4, 2013)

Lhune said:


> *Ricky; *I think the point was more that if you're going to act like a prick who doesn't give a fuck then it's really difficult to have any kind of a serious, adult discussion. You're so keen on defending the drug and so quick to dismiss any possible negatives, that combined with you "not giving a fuck" (same goes for Lucy) to me it just seems like you're both so blindly pro-pot that no matter what kind of research anyone throws at you you're not even going to read it through, you'll just mark it bullshit and move on to shouting things that we all already agree on (marijuana isn't worse than alcohol, moderate use is fine, it doesn't make people crazy, etc.). Stupid little pictures and supposedly funny YouTube clips included.
> 
> I admire FallowFox for their patience, but I honestly wouldn't have wasted any more time on you. You're really not helping your case, and much like Mayfurr I actually don't have a problem with weed at all, but people like you almost make me despise it. This "fuck the world" attitude you have is why a lot of people see weed as a (recreational) drug for the irresponsible and stupid.



At least I summarized things and didn't post a bunch of ad hominem bullshit =P

I like how your argument is "I don't like you, so weed must be bad."

So, enlighten me. What other poignant and illustrious facts were raised besides that one study?

Again, I'm skeptical of even that. It sounds like the "weed kills brain cells" study that was debunked forever ago.


----------



## Lhune (Apr 4, 2013)

Putting words into people's mouths as well. I never said weed is bad because I don't like you, but it's in your (and most pro-weed people with you) behavior that makes me _dislike_ weed and not be prone to support it, not suddenly think it's bad. If you're going to try to make a clever jab don't jump to such weird conclusions.

It's not about the studies that were raised. It's the dynamic I'm seeing which is that the "anti-weed people" (can't even call them anti-weed, they're just doubtful about whether it's really not harmful) come with reasonable arguments and research to back them up, and you just dismiss them blindly, every time. You don't come with studies of your own to prove YOUR points, nor any considerably reasonable arguments to defend your statements. "It was disproven forever ago" is nice and all, but when someone else uses that against you you demand proof. Where's yours? Basically, you keep going "LOL COME AT ME BRO", someone gives an argument and a link to a research, and you go "LOL BULLSHIT DISPROVEN AGES AGO I DON'T GIVE A SHIT, BYE." 

I'm not going to go into the discussion itself because I don't like to be told that I'm some rabid anti-weed pro-government brainwashed nitwit when all I'm saying is it COULD BE harmful, but you probably don't care about that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 4, 2013)

Contrary to wanting to daemonise cannabis understanding the side effects of the drugs we use is very important for legal drugs, especially if we use them regularly. For instance salicylic acid is a very useful pain killer, but it _does_ cause stomach ulcers. Aspirin is a safer form because it only liberates the drug once the material reaches the small intestines. 

If experimental data shows there is a correlation and likely causal relationship [derived from animal testing and isolation of other factors] between cannabis and small but reversible reduction in intelligence if the subject is adult then people who want to use cannabis for fun or as a pain killer will bennefit from making an informed choice, and furthermore people might be encouraged not to smoke cannabis anywhere adolescents could be exposed, since it harms them.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 4, 2013)

Lhune said:


> Putting words into people's mouths as well. I never said weed is bad because I don't like you, but it's in your (and most pro-weed people with you) behavior that makes me _dislike_ weed and not be prone to support it, not suddenly think it's bad. If you're going to try to make a clever jab don't jump to such weird conclusions.



No, that's definitely the same thing as I said.

Not supporting it, thinking it's bad, same goddamned thing.



Lhune said:


> It's not about the studies that were raised.



Yeah, 'cause like... who cares about FACTS? :roll:



Lhune said:


> It's the dynamic I'm seeing which is that the "anti-weed people" (can't even call them anti-weed, they're just doubtful about whether it's really not harmful) come with reasonable arguments and research to back them up, and you just dismiss them blindly, every time. You don't come with studies of your own to prove YOUR points, nor any considerably reasonable arguments to defend your statements.



Actually, you're wrong.

You might want to consider reading things before making assertions like that.



Lhune said:


> "It was disproven forever ago" is nice and all, but when someone else uses that against you you demand proof. Where's yours? Basically, you keep going "LOL COME AT ME BRO", someone gives an argument and a link to a research, and you go "LOL BULLSHIT DISPROVEN AGES AGO I DON'T GIVE A SHIT, BYE."



You obviously have no clue what I'm referring to. Sorry, I thought this was common knowledge. (the second one down)

You are proving *yourself* to be pretty damn ignorant of the facts.

I just said I am skeptical of that study, not that it is even relevant given the ages involved.

If that's what is on the table it is pretty much nil.

SEE WHAT I MEAN???


----------



## Lhune (Apr 4, 2013)

Not being pro-something and being anti-something are not the same thing or there wouldn't be such a thing as agnostics, and there are a pretty damn big lot of them. There is so much more grey area than you apparently think there is. God forbid someone is indifferent towards the legalization of weed!

Obviously I care about facts, but my point was not about the content of the studies, but about the way the discussion was going. I thought it was "_common knowledge"_ that in a discussion you should never assume something to _be_ common knowledge, especially not if the opposite party doesn't seem to agree with you or clearly needs the confirmation. I'll admit I missed the study you posted, but then I only read the last five or so pages of this thread.

I suppose I need to refer to this post as well. You may mean well, but your debating skills are just terrible. You can't even seem to get a point across without ridiculing the person you're talking to at least once or twice in the same post. Good luck convincing people of your right that way, I'm sure they're like to agree with you right after you've insulted them. Regarding that as well you do realize that, for as far as I've seen at least, nobody is this thread is actually anti-weed? I haven't seen anybody outright say that it's bad and should never be legalized. There only seems to be a small group that's _questioning_ the effects of legalization and you're acting like that's one of the most ridiculous things you've ever witnessed. There's no need for your passive aggressiveness.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 4, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> And you seriously want to convince others that your position is a right and reasonable one? You must give some kind of a fuck as you actually bothered to respond... but hey, whatever floats your miasma-filled cloud of pot smoke.


Not really. I know some people are too stupid to convince anything to, so I just sit back and insult them. It's fun.


----------



## Lhune (Apr 4, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> Not really. I know some people are too stupid to convince anything to, so I just sit back and insult them. It's fun.



Good thing the opposite party doesn't think the same or we'd just sit back and insult each other the whole time.

May as well just close this thread, then.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 4, 2013)

Lhune said:


> Not being pro-something and being anti-something are not the same thing or there wouldn't be such a thing as agnostics, and there are a pretty damn big lot of them. There is so much more grey area than you apparently think there is. God forbid someone is indifferent towards the legalization of weed!



Okay, now you're just making no sense at all.

You went from not supporting it to being indifferent about the subject?



Lhune said:


> Obviously I care about facts, but my point was not about the content of the studies, but about the way the discussion was going. I thought it was "_common knowledge"_ that in a discussion you should never assume something to _be_ common knowledge, especially not if the opposite party doesn't seem to agree with your or clearly needs the confirmation. I'll admit I missed the study you posted, but then I only read the last five or so pages of this thread.



Sorry, I assume people have a basic working knowledge of the subject they are discussing.

Then again, I explained it to you... didn't I?

THE MOAR YOU KNOW ^_^



Lhune said:


> I suppose I need to refer to this post as well. You may mean well, but your debating skills are just terrible. You can't even seem to get a point across without ridiculing the person you're talking to at least once or twice in the same post. Good luck convincing people of your right that way, I'm sure they're like to agree with you right after you've insulted them. Regarding that as well you do realize that, for as far as I've seen at least, nobody is this thread is actually anti-weed? I haven't seen anybody outright say that it's bad and should never be legalized. There only seems to be a small group that's _questioning_ the effects of legalization and you're acting like that's one of the most ridiculous things you've ever witnessed. There's no need for your passive aggressiveness.



Oh, cry me a river.

If my posting style makes you that upset this forum* the internet* is probably not the right place for you.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 4, 2013)

Lhune said:


> Good thing the opposite party doesn't think the same or we'd just sit back and insult each other the whole time.
> 
> May as well just close this thread, then.


I really don't care here on FAF. This forum is just a big playground for me.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 4, 2013)

Lhune said:


> Putting words into people's mouths as well. I never said weed is bad because I don't like you, but it's in your (and most pro-weed people with you) behavior that makes me _dislike_ weed and not be prone to support it, not suddenly think it's bad. If you're going to try to make a clever jab don't jump to such weird conclusions.
> 
> It's not about the studies that were raised. It's the dynamic I'm seeing which is that the "anti-weed people" (can't even call them anti-weed, they're just doubtful about whether it's really not harmful) come with reasonable arguments and research to back them up, and you just dismiss them blindly, every time. You don't come with studies of your own to prove YOUR points, nor any considerably reasonable arguments to defend your statements. "It was disproven forever ago" is nice and all, but when someone else uses that against you you demand proof. Where's yours? Basically, you keep going "LOL COME AT ME BRO", someone gives an argument and a link to a research, and you go "LOL BULLSHIT DISPROVEN AGES AGO I DON'T GIVE A SHIT, BYE."
> 
> I'm not going to go into the discussion itself because I don't like to be told that I'm some rabid anti-weed pro-government brainwashed nitwit when all I'm saying is it COULD BE harmful, but you probably don't care about that.


Nvm, misread.


----------



## wtfjinx (Apr 4, 2013)

Anything you smoke is harmful. You are putting byproducts of the substance into your lungs. Your lungs are damaged by smoke of any kind, due to whatever you are inhaling, let it be cigarette smoke, marijuana smoke, spray paint, diesel fuel, whatever.  NORML's website even states that lung damage has been found in cannabis smokers (duh.)
I could be wrong on this, but I am 90% sure that cannabis smoke, just like anything else being burned, causes carbon monoxide (CO), which is a highly deadly gas when inhaled for a long time.


----------



## Lhune (Apr 4, 2013)

I'll just note beforehand that after this post I'm not replying anymore. I'm all for a good discussion but this can't even be called a discussion and I'm wasting mine (and you your) time.



Ricky said:


> Okay, now you're just making no sense at all.
> 
> You went from not supporting it to being indifferent about the subject?



Not supporting something and being indifferent about something are not mutually exclusive. I don't understand your confusion.



Ricky said:


> Sorry, I assume people have a basic working knowledge of the subject they are discussing.
> 
> Then again, I explained it to you... didn't I?
> 
> THE MOAR YOU KNOW ^_^



Your view of what "basic working knowledge" is clearly isn't the same as mine.



Ricky said:


> Oh, cry me a river. If my posting style makes you this upset this forum the internet is probably not the right place for you.



I ask for simple common decency. That can't be too much to ask even on the internet. And spare me, you're really not so much of a hard-ass as you think you are. If anything you're all the more a coward for abusing your anonymity and being a dick to random strangers.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 4, 2013)

I like how I was genuinely trying to extract information and I get ad hominem crap in response.

So, I guess the only thing on the other side of the fence is that one study.

A study involving only 1000 people that has not been replicated.



wtfjinx said:


> Anything you smoke is harmful. You are putting  byproducts of the substance into your lungs. Your lungs are damaged by  smoke of any kind, due to whatever you are inhaling, let it be cigarette  smoke, marijuana smoke, spray paint, diesel fuel, whatever.  NORML's  website even states that lung damage has been found in cannabis smokers  (duh.)
> I could be wrong on this, but I am 90% sure that cannabis smoke, just  like anything else being burned, causes carbon monoxide (CO), which is a  highly deadly gas when inhaled for a long time.



You don't need to smoke it, dude.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 4, 2013)

Common decency is for those who show themselves to be decent.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 4, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> Common decency is for those who show themselves to be decent.



I suppose this sentence entitles you to behave however you want towards anyone. 

You and ricky are alienating people who actually agree with your general viewpoint, do you not see how counterproductive this is? 

Not everyone who is fine with cannabis being legalised is extreme enough to insist that, as a drug, it has no appreciable side effects- because numerous studies suggest it does have side effects and being aware of them is important and *not* equivalent to 'GRR cannabis bad >:C '


----------



## Ricky (Apr 4, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I suppose this sentence entitles you to behave however you want towards anyone.
> 
> You and ricky are alienating people who actually agree with your general viewpoint, do you not see how counterproductive this is?



I'm trying to have an intellectual discussion, not convince people of anything.

I don't care if people here like me. Boo-fucking-hoo.



Fallowfox said:


> Not everyone who is fine with cannabis being legalised is extreme enough to insist that, as a drug, it has no appreciable side effects- because numerous studies suggest it does have side effects and being aware of them is important and *not* equivalent to 'GRR cannabis bad >:C '



What else was there besides the IQ study?

(which involved only 1000 people and has not been replicated)


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 4, 2013)

Lhune said:


> Good thing the opposite party doesn't think the same or we'd just sit back and insult each other the whole time.
> 
> May as well just close this thread, then.



Well to be fair, Hinalle _was_ insulting pot smokers every couple of pages when he kept busting in with an uncalled-for comment acting as though smokers had the cognitive ability of a 4-year-old. But now that that's over, I agree with you. Please don't take the posts in this thread to represent the mainstream attitude of smokers. We're actually usually pretty laid back. 





wtfjinx said:


> Anything you smoke is harmful. You are putting byproducts of the substance into your lungs. Your lungs are damaged by smoke of any kind, due to whatever you are inhaling, let it be cigarette smoke, marijuana smoke, spray paint, diesel fuel, whatever.  NORML's website even states that lung damage has been found in cannabis smokers (duh.)
> I could be wrong on this, but I am 90% sure that cannabis smoke, just like anything else being burned, causes carbon monoxide (CO), which is a highly deadly gas when inhaled for a long time.



You're right, and eating it or vaporizing it is a much healthier alternative. Right now, though, those methods are just as illegal as smoking it.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 4, 2013)

I'm laid back, I'm just a cheeky jackass.

I ain't afraid to admit it. :U


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 4, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I don't care if people here like me. Boo-fucking-hoo.



If this were true, I suspect you would not have bothered acknowledging the point at all.

To not care is to pretend it is not even there. You are not capable of this, nor is just about anyone.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 4, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> If this were true, I suspect you would not have bothered acknowledging the point at all.
> 
> To not care is to pretend it is not even there. You are not capable of this, nor is just about anyone.



Do you not understand how someone could be interested in discussing a topic, while not trying to get everyone to like them?

You are [mostly] a bunch of random internet users to me. Why should I care?

I  just care about the topic at hand.

But "boo-hoo I'm so mean," is all I'm getting out of this. You all are a bunch of pussies =P

Nobody has even answered my question, so I'm pretty convinced at this point that study was all that's on the table.

And that's pretty weak.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 4, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Do you not understand how someone could be interested in discussing a topic, while not trying to get everyone to like them?
> 
> You are [mostly] a bunch of random internet users to me. Why should I care?
> 
> ...



I'm only here to point out the obvious hot-air balloon you're blowing up. I do not actually care about the topic in the slightest.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 4, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> I'm only here to point out the obvious hot-air balloon you're blowing up. I do not actually care about the topic in the slightest.



Right. Real intelligent.

You are the model of maturity =P


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 4, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I'm trying to have an intellectual discussion, not convince people of anything.
> 
> I don't care if people here like me. Boo-fucking-hoo.
> 
> ...



1000 people is an acceptable number in a medical study, to my knowledge. Random errors are not hugely likely to have an impact. Replication of a 40 year study is unlikely to happen within a year or two of its publication, so...you know. 

Other research into cannabis revealed a link between people with predisposed psychosis, cannabis and the development of schizophrenia as well as some specific cannibinoids' functions as treatments for this disease too.

Research on animals showed detrimental effects of cannabis on brain tissue, but this isn't necessarily analogous to human consumption. 

Inhalation of cannabis within a smoke of other chemicals is widely recognised as not exactly peachy for the tissues in the lungs, but I'm not aware what affects ingestion has. Perhaps ingestion is better, perhaps it is worse, but since it doesn't affect other people around the cannabis user too it might be a better idea for consuming the drug, for instance medical cannabis could come as tablets, or even have possible hallucenogenic properties removed by filtering out the responsible chemicals [if they are not also responsible for the medical function]. 

Plenty of studies have been discussed and posted in this thread discussing the effects of cannabis use [not demanding that it is illegal], but you only seem to remember them after I've posted them 4 times.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 4, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> 1000 people is an acceptable number in a medical study, to my knowledge. Random errors are not hugely likely to have an impact. Replication of a 40 year study is unlikely to happen within a year or two of its publication, so...you know.



No. 1000 people is NOT A LOT AT ALL for a statistical study.



Fallowfox said:


> Other research into cannabis revealed a link between people with predisposed psychosis, cannabis and the development of schizophrenia as well as some specific cannibinoids' functions as treatments for this disease too.



Yeah, it goes both ways.

That seems to imply a net effect of 0.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't CAUSE people to go insane, however.



Fallowfox said:


> Research on animals showed detrimental effects of cannabis on brain tissue, but this isn't necessarily analogous to human consumption.



That was debunked, if it's the same monkey experiment I am thinking of.



Fallowfox said:


> Inhalation of cannabis within a smoke of other chemicals is widely recognised as not exactly peachy for the tissues in the lungs, but I'm not aware what affects ingestion has. Perhaps ingestion is better, perhaps it is worse, but since it doesn't affect other people around the cannabis user too it might be a better idea for consuming the drug, for instance medical cannabis could come as tablets, or even have possible hallucenogenic properties removed by filtering out the responsible chemicals [if they are not also responsible for the medical function.



Ingestion is definitely better for you, as is using a vaporizer.

If you eat it, you are negating all these "bad effects from smoking things."

There are only 3 active chemicals. I wouldn't consider THC a hallucinogen but that's probably what you're thinking of.



Fallowfox said:


> Plenty of studies have been discussed and posted in this thread discussing the effects of cannabis use [not demanding that it is illegal], but you only seem to remember them after I've posted them 4 times.



I'm not going through 350+ posts when I can ask someone to summarize it.

I must have skipped those posts.

But there, that's my 2c


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 4, 2013)

1000 is at the lower end of the number of people in a phase 3 clinical trial. It's statistical power is acceptable. 

It doesn't imply a net effect of zero, for mind numbingly simple reasons such as the word 'specific' and the fact that cannibinoids are not all equally powerful in their effects or uniform in concentration in any sample of cannabis. One form of cannabis might be less harmful than another with a different ratio of cannibinoids, such as skunk. 

Your source on monkeys says there is no change in brain physiology in monkeys or humans, no quarms there. It does also note that significant cannabis use can cause a detrimental effect on memory after withdrawal, so long term cannabis use certainly does have an influence on brain chemistry [not to say this is significant enough to merit its legal status, it's a proof of concept]

Ingestion might not be better if cannibinoids irritate the stomach lining or some other thing I'm unaware of. I've currently no idea, but I assume there's no effect?


----------



## Hinalle K. (Apr 4, 2013)

sunshyne said:


> Well to be fair, Hinalle _was_ insulting pot smokers every couple of pages when he kept busting in with an uncalled-for comment acting as though smokers had the cognitive ability of a 4-year-old. But now that that's over, I agree with you. Please don't take the posts in this thread to represent the mainstream attitude of smokers. We're actually usually pretty laid back.


You're speaking as if I said they act like that all the time!
I meant they only act like that when they're high as balls, you ninny. 

You know it's true!


----------



## Ricky (Apr 4, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> 1000 is at the lower end of the number of people in a phase 3 clinical trial. It's statistical power is acceptable.



Clinical trials are not even relevant here. We aren't testing a medication for side effects; we are *specifically *correlating use with a small drop in IQ. You could definitely have anomalies in that small of a group, with that small of a number. That's not even mentioning demographics that were never taken into account. It said years of education was taken into account, but what about stuff like diet and exercise? Socioeconomic level and the type of education? I could go on and on I'm sure but that's all speculation.



Fallowfox said:


> It doesn't imply a net effect of zero, for mind numbingly simple reasons such as the word 'specific' and the fact that cannibinoids are not all equally powerful in their effects or uniform in concentration in any sample of cannabis. One form of cannabis might be less harmful than another with a different ratio of cannibinoids, such as skunk.



Dude... Weed doesn't make you go insane.

Certain types of weed don't make you go insane, either. That's nonsense.

There has been research to show a correlation of "psychosis" with cannabis use but that doesn't mean much, since the definition of psychosis can vary. For example, in the Fergusson and Henquet papers, the self-reported "psychotic symptoms" include items such as "having ideas  or beliefs that others do not share." Also, drug abuse IN GENERAL has been shown to correlate with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders but this doesn't imply causation. Drug users in general as a sample population are probably more likely to fall into this boat. Maybe people who are a bit nuts smoke weed to calm them down?

Still, it doesn't make people go crazy. It is never a cause for schizophrenia by itself -- it's always a component cause.

It also helps treat people; that's what I meant by a net effect of 0. Obviously that's being facetious but you get the drift.



Fallowfox said:


> Your source on monkeys says there is no change in brain physiology in monkeys or humans, no quarms there. It does also note that significant cannabis use can cause a detrimental effect on memory after withdrawal, so long term cannabis use certainly does have an influence on brain chemistry [not to say this is significant enough to merit its legal status, it's a proof of concept]



That's interesting -- I always thought the memory loss thing was WHILE YOU WERE HIGH.

And yeah, it has influence on brain chemistry seeing how it's a THC agonist.

I don't know how that relates to memory _before starting use_ of the drug but it's interesting nonetheless.



> Ingestion might not be better if cannibinoids irritate the stomach lining or some other thing I'm unaware of. I've currently no idea, but I assume there's no effect?



No. It's an inert oil; it would be like eating anything else.


----------



## Lea (Apr 4, 2013)

My personal opinion is that it shouldn't be legalized but I guess people will get a hold of it anyway, so if it stops a lot of violence and crime then why not?
I don't agree with the use of illegal drugs but I'm not gonna stop people from smoking it. As long as they don't smoke it around me I'm fine I guess.

I'm just concerned with the long term effects from the abuse of it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 4, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Clinical trials are not even relevant here. We aren't testing a medication for side effects; we are *specifically *correlating use with a small drop in IQ. You could definitely have anomalies in that small of a group, with that small of a number. That's not even mentioning demographics that were never taken into account. It said years of education was taken into account, but what about stuff like diet and exercise? Socioeconomic level and the type of education? I could go on and on I'm sure but that's all speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not sure you appreciate the statistical power of a 1000 strong test over 40 years. It's acceptable. As previously iterated the demonstration in changes in iq when using and after giving up cannabis, which are segregated in terms of recovery by a boundary of 18 years, strongly indicates that social factors are not the cause here. Date of cannabis use is the variable; cannabis has a causal relationship with the results. 


Some cannibinoids do precipitate schizophrenia in predisposed individuals. This is not the same as saying 'cannabis makes you go insane'. Those fancy scientific words are used with good reason and removing them turns the statement into a strawman argument. 
You may like to ask yourself that, if these scientists are falling pray to a correlation equates to causation fallacy, how they managed to isolate the fact some cannibinoids can actually be used to treat psychotic predispositions. Obviously these scientists are undertaking tests with more sophistication than you state. 

This is an important observation of cannibinoids' effects and it could be used to isolate individuals at risk and warn them not to use certain cannibinoid drugs or even to use other cannibinoid drugs to treat them. 


The memory loss was sustained specifically between 6 and 12 weeks after withdrawal from heavy use. Which is curious because it also has some of the hallmarks of addiction, because it's a withdrawal symptom. Again this is* not *a statement that cannabis is addictive and therefore should not be legal. 

Then ingestion sounds like a fantastic idea for anybody using cannibinoid drugs.





EDIT; For anyone who is interested you can get a legal high off of a lime tree

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbXzI0TdbHM&list=SP3E28E3F38ACCE317

[sideeffects not stated/known?]


----------



## Ricky (Apr 4, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm not sure you appreciate the statistical power of a 1000 strong test over 40 years. It's acceptable. As previously iterated the demonstration in changes in iq when using and after giving up cannabis, which are segregated in terms of recovery by a boundary of 18 years, strongly indicates that social factors are not the cause here. Date of cannabis use is the variable; cannabis has a causal relationship with the results.



I love how you get to a point where you just repeat yourself. Oh, okay. I'll just believe all this shit because you say so. Right, a single study with 1000 participants that HAS NEVER BEEN REPLICATED is incontrovertible. Right, social factors aren't the cause. Why? Because Fallowfox says so. Because like... _*People who do drugs are certainly not going to fall into any specific demographics that could influence the result at all*_.

You realize how full of shit that is, right?

The rest of the post is just you repeating more stuff so I won't even bother with it.

Like, I can't even draw a single point you are trying to make out of it.

Edit:

It even says right there in the article:



> "I suspect that the findings are true. *If and when they are replicated*  then it will be very important and public education campaigns should be  initiated to let people know the risks."


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 4, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I love how you get to a point where you just repeat yourself. Oh, okay. I'll just believe all this shit because you say so. Right, a single study with 1000 participants that HAS NEVER BEEN REPLICATED is incontrovertible. Right, social factors aren't the cause. Why? Because Fallowfox says so. Because like... _*People who do drugs are certainly not going to fall into any specific demographics that could influence the result at all*_.
> 
> You realize how full of shit that is, right?
> 
> ...



...I'm not sure how you are irrate than a study which took 40 years has not been replicated since its release in what...2008? 

You shouldn't need to trust me on what I say, I'm stating the logical mechanism by which cannabis is identified as the likely independant variable. The logic is as follows.

-People who use cannabis regardless of age they started have a lower IQ than their counterparts [control group], after isolating years of education.
-A number of the cannabis users give up cannabis
-Only those who started _after_ age 18 recover the IQ defecit they had in comparison to the control group. 
-Even if we assume that giving up cannabis is equivalent to changing your social group the effect of age 18 indicates a biological cause for the IQ discrepency.
-Eventhough those who started under 18 can be assumed to have changed social group like their over 18 counter parts the change does nothing for their IQ.
-Ergo change in social group is eliminated as the indpendant variable. 

Cannabis use is concluded to be the most likely independant variable.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 4, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> ...I'm not sure how you are irrate than a study which took 40 years has not been replicated since its release in what...2008?



IT IS UNRELIABLE DATA AT THAT POINT

Why the fuck do you think research gets replicated? Just for fun?



Fallowfox said:


> -People who use cannabis regardless of age they started have a lower IQ than their counterparts [control group], after isolating years of education.
> -A number of the cannabis users give up cannabis
> -Only those who started _after_ age 18 recover the IQ defecit they had in comparison to the control group.
> -Even if we assume that giving up cannabis is equivalent to changing your social group the effect of age 18 indicates a biological cause for the IQ discrepency.
> ...



I read the article at least a few times. You don't have to repeat that as well.

Holy fuck.

None of that eliminates demographics. There is a HUGE gaping hole right there.

And no, the effect at age 18 does not say ANYTHING about a "biological cause for the IQ discrepancy."


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 4, 2013)

Ricky said:


> IT IS UNRELIABLE DATA AT THAT POINT
> 
> Why the fuck do you think research gets replicated? Just for fun?
> 
> ...



It's power is, as I keep iterating, not too shabby since it did feature 1000 people over a very extended period of study. 

and many suggestions of demographics are indeed dismissed.

Cannabis permanently depressed iq's of people who took it before 18, but not those who started after, who could recover. Any change in social group you attribute to 'non pot smoker [in general]' is therefore dismissed and your social demographic variables are now age based. You are forced to presume for instance that there exists a social demograph of people with permanently depressed iq who start cannabis before 18 but then voluntarily stop.

That explanation is messy and vague.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 4, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> as I keep iterating



Yeah, you're good at that.

The bottom line is it wasn't replicated and they even state in the article it will be valuable information ONCE IT IS. That's because they are scientists and they know the study can't be trusted as-is.



> Cannabis permanently depressed iq's of people who took it before 18, but not those who started after, who could recover. Any change in social group you attribute to 'non pot smoker [in general]' is therefore dismissed and your social demographic variables are now age based. You are forced to presume for instance that there exists a social demograph of people with permanently depressed iq who start cannabis before 18 but then voluntarily stop.



It doesn't matter what age. Demographics apply to people under AND over 18. Maybe it's a developmental thing, who knows? The fact that it was permanent for people who started under 18 does not imply we just throw all that shit out the window. It might not even imply anything because the study isn't necessarily believable.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 4, 2013)

It's strong evidence, not infallible, but the case for a cannabis as the free variable is better than mysterious demographic explanations.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 5, 2013)

So let me get this straight:
Weed _might _temporarily damage IQ in a broad age range of regular users
Weed _might _temporarily damage memory in a broad age range of regular users
It _might_ help induce mental-related illnesses in those prone to them.

Am I spot on with those, or did I miss something? Either way:

Even if all of the above things were a 100% guarantee from mild to moderate severity, there still doesn't really seem to be a reason to keep it illegal (which is the point of the thread). I dunno what else there is to argue, other than semantics. We're nearing post 400, and this shit has gone in circle after circle.

From what I can best tell from this thread, is that in a damn near *worst case scenario* weed is easily the best consumption-based vice to have. The cons are 'meh' at best, and you have to be a moderate-regular user for the most part, whist the pros are fucking *awesome*.


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 5, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I'm trying to have an intellectual discussion, not convince people of anything.



So when are you going to _start_ having an intellectual conversation? As opposed to airily dismissing anything you don't agree with?



Lastdirewolf said:


> So let me get this straight:
> Weed _might _temporarily damage IQ in a broad age range of regular users
> Weed _might _temporarily damage memory in a broad age range of regular users
> It _might_ help induce mental-related illnesses in those prone to them.
> ...



True - but people like Ricky and Lucy Bones seem to ignore that fact that most people in this thread don't actually have a problem with legalisation as such, preferring to accuse anyone that points out that weed might not be totally "fucking awesome" as being "anti-weed" and proceeding to insult them.


----------



## Zuckerdachs (Apr 5, 2013)

It's silly to paint everyone within a _huge_ demographic (here, cannabis users) with the same brush. Not all users are laid back or nice, as this thread has shown; many are. Not all are morons (Carl Sagan anyone?); some are ... as this thread has shown. I'm not going to go all No True Scotsman on the demographic and say "Don't judge us, we're all really chill!" because I know damned well what pricks some people who use it can be, but really there are so many people who use it, it's intellectually dishonest to generalize in either direction.

When it comes down to it, it depends on the user. I know that proponents of legalization repeatedly bring up the legality of alcohol, and that's a completely accurate comparison. Though anecdotal evidence isn't really viable in a debate, I'll say that my early life was wrecked by irresponsible alcohol use (of a family member), but early adulthood was enhanced by safe cannabis use (mine). The important thing to note here is *safety and responsibility*. People who use _anything_ irresponsibly put themselves and others at risk. People who ignore common sense because whatever they're doing is fun are selfish, immature, and generally kind of big assholes.

Yes, there is evidence of medical benefits of its use. Until we can get past this silly over-generalization of what kind of people pot smokers are, I think we'd be better off looking at the risks instead, and then examine how hypocritical it is that alcohol is legal even with well documented proof of how dangerous irresponsible use can be. I see no reason it shouldn't be treated by the law exactly like alcohol, then tax the hell out of it. Safer, better for the economy, better for the individual.

As an aside, I don't use anymore because my career is more important to me. However, I still support regulated legalization.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 5, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> So when are you going to _start_ having an intellectual conversation? As opposed to airily dismissing anything you don't agree with?



Yeah, because making personal attacks is intelligent which is the only thing you are doing. I've backed up everything I've said pretty damn well. Tell me -- what have YOU added here that has any value to it, whatsoever?

Eat it.

EDIT: I went through your posts here and this is the only thing you added that has any substance whatsoever. And there isn't any information -- it's just opinion. Every other post you made here was a personal attack. And not only are you making personal attacks but you are making personal attacks about making personal attacks. REALLY?!?!

If you are going attack people, don't be a hypocritical jerk and do the same thing back.

Here is EVERY OTHER POST you have made in this thread:



> So when are you going to start having an intellectual conversation? As opposed to airily dismissing anything you don't agree with?
> 
> True - but people like Ricky and Lucy Bones seem to ignore...
> 
> ...






So, like I said... EAT IT =P


----------



## Artillery Spam (Apr 5, 2013)

I don't have anything to add to the above discussion. 

However, I will add this:

I recently tried weed for the first time. For someone who is constantly worrying about something or thinking about something, it really is disturbing (yet surprisingly satisfying) to have your head _forcibly_ slowed down to a _crawl_ for about an hour or two. Everything that's wrong in the world or in your life means nothing to you for the briefest of moments, lulling you into a false sense of security that is not met with scorn and hostility, but with welcoming arms. This was my experience, so of course I can't speak for everyone else who has smoked or will smoke. 

My mom used to drill her strong hatred for weed into me prior to me trying it for the first time. I ate it up.

But now I see why people smoke it; my biased opinion on stoners and weed users pretty was pretty much thrown out the window after I got high for the first time. Am I thirsting for another joint? No, not at all.  While the effects it had on me were soothing and interesting, it isn't something that I can see myself doing a lot (or possibly even again). It was kind of the same way with me and alcohol. I wasn't a fan of that stuff either even after trying it. 

I say legalize weed. There aren't any good arguments against it, anyway.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 5, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> True - but people like Ricky and Lucy Bones seem to ignore that fact that most people in this thread don't actually have a problem with legalisation as such, preferring to accuse anyone that points out that weed might not be totally "fucking awesome" as being "anti-weed" and proceeding to insult them.


You high, mayne?

The fuckheads are the people who want it illegal for no good reason. That would be, ALL people who want it illegal.

Cuz' there are no good reasons for keeping it illegal.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 5, 2013)

I like how I was accused of "dismissing points" when I had a valid argument against them by someone who really had nothing substantial to add in the first place. I even said the memory loss issue FF brought up was new to me.

Some people in this forum, especially the hipocritical self-righteous ones, crack me up to no end. That and the ones who complain that I'm mean because... holy shit, how do they get by in life if they think *I AM* bad..


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 5, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I like how I was accused of "dismissing points" when I had a valid argument against them by someone who really had nothing substantial to add in the first place. I even said the memory loss issue FF brought up was new to me.



And the claims of what damage weed can do to someone who uses it frequently, even if true, are laughable compared to cigarettes and alcohol. This comparison comes up frequently, but it's ultimately true. You'll be in way worse health if you regularly drank enough alcohol to be on par with being high, and I don't think there are any positive health effects stemming from cigarettes (other than maybe short-term?), but forgive my ignorance on that.


----------



## Xiz (Apr 7, 2013)

From what i've seen over here with weed being legal in Colorado, nothing has changed. Pot smokers are smoking as much as they did when it was not legal. Non-pot smokers haven't changed either. I guess the only change is perhaps they try it once or twice. It being legal really changes nothing for the average consumer from what I have noticed. 

(Besides the day it became legal. There was one hell of a cloud over this state haha)


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 7, 2013)

Xiz said:


> From what i've seen over here with weed being legal in Colorado, nothing has changed. Pot smokers are smoking as much as they did when it was not legal. Non-pot smokers haven't changed either. I guess the only change is perhaps they try it once or twice. It being legal really changes nothing for the average consumer from what I have noticed.
> 
> (Besides the day it became legal. There was one hell of a cloud over this state haha)



Well, you'd see the difference if you hung around the courthouse/jail. They're not hauling people in anymore for smoking a joint in the alley behind the bar (although I'll admit they haven't been doing that in Colorado for years and years; more accurately they aren't writing people tickets for it anymore).



Lucy Bones said:


> You high, mayne?
> 
> The fuckheads are the people who want it illegal for no good reason. That would be, ALL people who want it illegal.
> 
> Cuz' there are no good reasons for keeping it illegal.



You know what? I'm not sure you actually ARE a smoker... Usually people who smoke are at least open to diverse ideas. You need to step back and realize for just one fucking second that maybe there are people out there who oppose legalization not because they are "fuckheads" (as you so eloquently put it) but because they don't have all of the facts. Or because they have had unfortunate and non-representative experiences with people who do smoke. You do the cause a severe disservice when you approach things from the angle you're approaching it from. Try to change minds instead. It's actually possible.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 8, 2013)

To not have all the facts, and then deny them when they're openly given to you, is the DEFINITION of a fuckhead.


----------



## Tigercougar (Apr 8, 2013)

Simple version:

 Won't happen without a fight. Too many people stand to lose too much money from legalization...among them the prison industry.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 9, 2013)

Lastdirewolf said:


> And the claims of what damage weed can do to someone who uses it frequently, even if true, are laughable compared to cigarettes and alcohol. This comparison comes up frequently, but it's ultimately true. You'll be in way worse health if you regularly drank enough alcohol to be on par with being high, and I don't think there are any positive health effects stemming from cigarettes (other than maybe short-term?), but forgive my ignorance on that.



Many of the individuals claiming cannabis can cause damage are not exercising this as a reason to prohibit it. I'm not for instance. We were correcting what we saw as mistaken claims, or in some cases providing evidence to those who literally, though likely rhetorically, asked to have it. 

Recognising cannibinoid drugs can have negative effects doesn't equate to wanting them banned.



Lucy Bones said:


> To not have all the facts, and then deny them  when they're openly given to you, is the DEFINITION of a  fuckhead.



And here I was thinking 'fuckhead' was a nonsense term you made up off the top of your head which you would realise is symptomatic of an unhelpful attitude; you even managed to lock people who support legalisation into extended arguments. 

It's easy to insist that the definition of 'fuckhead' is exactly someone who 'x thing sunshyne said' when you think there's no actual definition because you believe you made it up. 

However, to take this literality further a fuckhead does have a definition: "A stupid or contemptible person (often used as a general term of abuse)" 

You might argue that anyone disagreeing with you is definitively stupid or deserving of contempt, but that's exactly what the the imaginery 'fuckhead' you are arguing against thinks. 

Stop engaging straw men.


----------



## Dizrawr (Apr 9, 2013)

-insert chuck fenda music here-
They can do it if they want, honestly it's of no concern to me, I swear my teachers are high already.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 9, 2013)

Tigercougar said:


> Simple version:
> 
> Won't happen without a fight. Too many people stand to lose too much money from legalization...among them the prison industry.


Mainly the plastic and paper industries.  *coughdupontcough*


----------



## Azure (Apr 9, 2013)

man i gotta say...


----------



## Aleu (Apr 9, 2013)

Man I know there are a few people here that need a joint :V

But seriously for the topic about the whole "lowering the IQ" thing. IQ doesn't really mean jack or shit once you hit a certain age so I'm pretty sure that argument is moot anyway. It's only really meaningful for children and getting them placed in classes that would better suit them.

Nowadays, IQ scores are just for pseudo-intellectuals  to have an excuse to act high and mighty


----------



## Ricky (Apr 9, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Man I know there are a few people here that need a joint :V
> 
> But seriously for the topic about the whole "lowering the IQ" thing. IQ doesn't really mean jack or shit once you hit a certain age so I'm pretty sure that argument is moot anyway. It's only really meaningful for children and getting them placed in classes that would better suit them.
> 
> Nowadays, IQ scores are just for pseudo-intellectuals  to have an excuse to act high and mighty



I'm not sure IQ means anything anyway. People can raise their IQ by reading. Intelligence isn't fixed but rather learned.

Take your average redneck for example. Someone most people would think is dumb could know not only every major make and model of car and truck and what parts go with what but can also tell you what's wrong with one by its symptoms, using deductive logic.

I knew someone in high school because he was also a complete druggie, except he did poorly in his classes, to the point of barely passing. He took an honors level neuroscience course with me and the teacher used a college level book and didn't make it easy. The class focused on drugs though, and he was interested, so he got an A.

People are just generally lazy and not interested in intellectual subjects and don't use that part of their brain that often, is what I think. Combine that with a lack confidence learning the subject matter on their own and, aside from a few people who are ACTUALLY mentally challenged, it seems people are generally capable of the same shit.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Apr 10, 2013)

Damn, this thread's grown. I thought it was LONG dead. Anyway, yeah, from my time spent on the Grasscity forums, I can sa that others as well aa myself are indeed very open to others' ideas. 

And someone said they used to smoke an O a day? damn, if you can finish off what should be AT LEAST a week's supply daily, that's not good. That would probably be as bad as chain smoking like five packs of cigs daily. Every stoner should practice moderation. If you need an ounce to keep satisfied, you DEFINITELY need a T-break. Not trying to insult anyone, of course, but it takes me 3 weeks to get through that much dank. Plus, buying an ounce a day had to be pretty financially scarring.

Lucy: Driving stoned is a very bad ide, and due to the persecution stoners face, we try not to subject others to that, as we know how that feels. So unless the idea is utterly preposterous, don't immediately shoot it down.

Also seeing a lot of pretentiousness here. My best friend Hinalle being one of the worst.

Speaking of Hinalle, I have him insulting me, only to come back and find him insulting other people. Frankly, I'm hurt. I thought he and I had something... special.


----------



## Azure (Apr 10, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> Damn, this thread's grown. I thought it was LONG dead. Anyway, yeah, from my time spent on the Grasscity forums, I can sa that others as well aa myself are indeed very open to others' ideas.
> 
> And someone said they used to smoke an O a day? damn, if you can finish off what should be AT LEAST a week's supply daily, that's not good. That would probably be as bad as chain smoking like five packs of cigs daily. Every stoner should practice moderation. If you need an ounce to keep satisfied, you DEFINITELY need a T-break.
> 
> ...


hahahaha, i used to smoke 2 packs of smokes AND shoot up, in addition to that(and drink, and do pretty much whatever was around). nothing satisfied me back then. as far as a break, i havent smoked any cannabis in 6 months. and cigarettes ive quit for two months. and lemme tell ya, its infinitely worse than weed. i still get urges to smoke a cigarette even after they start to smell like shit and make me sneeze uncontrollably. need to reach that year mark.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Apr 10, 2013)

Azure said:


> hahahaha, i used to smoke 2 packs of smokes AND shoot up, in addition to that(and drink, and do pretty much whatever was around). nothing satisfied me back then. as far as a break, i havent smoked any cannabis in 6 months. and cigarettes ive quit for two months. and lemme tell ya, its infinitely worse than weed. i still get urges to smoke a cigarette even after they start to smell like shit and make me sneeze uncontrollably. need to reach that year mark.



I'm rooting for you, man. I wasn't judging, a few of my friends got into a cypher in our early teens, after income tax time and allowances were spent on a half pound of MJ, which we promptly began breaking up and smoking in my garage. Within 3 hours, half of that shit was gone. Those were good times. Took my first bong rip that day too from a glass on glass, can't remember tje brand, but I coughed so much I puked. You'd think I would've learned to chill out, but nope, went right back and took another. 

I LOL when I think of my noob days.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 10, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> *half pound* of MJ





Ganjaman97 said:


> Within 3 hours, half of that shit was gone



uhh... What the hell were you doing with all that weed to make it gone so quickly?


----------



## Aleu (Apr 10, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I'm not sure IQ means anything anyway. People can raise their IQ by reading. Intelligence isn't fixed but rather learned.
> 
> Take your average redneck for example. Someone most people would think is dumb could know not only every major make and model of car and truck and what parts go with what but can also tell you what's wrong with one by its symptoms, using deductive logic.
> 
> ...



Like I said. IQ only means something to children up to a certain point. Intelligence isn't about how much you know but rather how good the process is to learn something. That's why as adults, IQ means nothing as we generally already found how we best learn and focus on our skills.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 10, 2013)

Kentucky just made hemp farming legal.  Still a long way to go.  But I can't wait for the day I can pack a bowl right in front of a cop.  You can try and fight, but we're all agreed, because everything is better with a bag o' weed!


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Like I said. IQ only means something to children up to a certain point. Intelligence isn't about how much you know but rather how good the process is to learn something. That's why as adults, IQ means nothing as we generally already found how we best learn and focus on our skills.


In large populations IQ is an effective indicator of intelligence and general brain health in some scenarios. On an individual basis it's certainly not infallible.

People end up making two misconceptions about IQ.
-that if you have a high IQ it concretely proves you're a superior intellect/reverse case
-that because IQ doesn't concretely prove individual's intelligence that it's a useless and meaningless measure

both of these misconceptions are wrong.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Apr 10, 2013)

Ricky said:


> uhh... What the hell were you doing with all that weed to make it gone so quickly?



Weed doesn't tend to last very long when you get ten stoners together in one place. Especially if most of them are new to the culture and don't know what the hell moderation is. I brought this story up to illustrate exactly why moderation is important, and that I wouldn't have a right to judge Azure for his habit.

I mean, we only smoked half, not the whole thing, so we split a QP that night, basically.

Which isn't that much to split between that many people, especially when four of them are veteran tokers.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 10, 2013)

I love how people are only bitching about recreational usage.  The biggest reason Kentucky is legalizing cannabis is for its durability as a fiber.   Fucking awesome ropes and canvas, imagine painting on that shit.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 10, 2013)

The military uses a lot of hemp rope cuz its stronger than regular rope.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Apr 10, 2013)

Hemp has many uses. I read somewhere that it actually has more uses than any other natural fiber, with cotton being second.


----------



## Recel (Apr 10, 2013)

Lunar said:


> I love how people are only bitching about recreational usage.  The biggest reason Kentucky is legalizing cannabis is for its durability as a fiber.   Fucking awesome ropes and canvas, *imagine painting on that shit.*



I can already see all the great artists with cannabis canvases. Making a great painting, burning it, getting high on the smoke to get inspiration for their next piece! :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 10, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> Hemp has many uses. I read somewhere that it actually has more uses than any other natural fiber, with cotton being second.



Yup and it grows pretty much anywhere, so it really ought to be a super-crop.


----------



## Krieger (Apr 10, 2013)

While marijuana is highly taxable and would bring a LOT of extra revenue, I must say that I find all types of drugs wrong. (Except for those used strictly as prescribed)
That being said, there is only one way that I would accept a complete legalization of marijuana. I have told my idea to my friends, and they think it is absurd and radical, it kind of is.
I believe that marijuana should be allowed provided that when you smoke it, you must pay a HUGE amount of money to do so, but you have to smoke it in an enclosed room in a government facility. Once the stuff is out of your system, you may leave. 
Yes, it is a pretty stupid idea, but it would make a lot of people feel safer, even though I have heard that marijuana does not make people more violent.


----------



## Grimfang (Apr 10, 2013)

+1 opinion in this thread

It should be legal. Acting like marijuana use will disappear through DARE programs or whatever is just hilarious. While a lot of people choose to live without anything like alcohol or marijuana, it's human nature to consume the stuff. It'd be a lot more profitable and less damaging to society to have it regulated like alcohol. Even if laws fall a little short and simply decriminalize marijuana, it still leaves a criminal industry open.


edit: v


Krieger said:


> While marijuana is highly taxable and would bring a LOT of extra revenue, I must say that I find all types of drugs wrong. (Except for those used strictly as prescribed)
> That being said, there is only one way that I would accept a complete legalization of marijuana. I have told my idea to my friends, and they think it is absurd and radical, it kind of is.
> I believe that marijuana should be allowed provided that when you smoke it, you must pay a HUGE amount of money to do so, but you have to smoke it in an enclosed room in a government facility. Once the stuff is out of your system, you may leave.
> Yes, it is a pretty stupid idea, but it would make a lot of people feel safer, even though I have heard that marijuana does not make people more violent.



This sort of thing has pretty much been done, and it has had positive effects, like fewer overdoses on harder drugs. So while I disagree with your view (both on the cost, and having observed/controlled use), I don't think it's stupid.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Apr 10, 2013)

A problem with that would be people still buying it illegally to avoid the "HUGE cost" of the legal stuff and avoiding confinement to actually be able to enjoy the high. Instead of that, why not have "marijuana bars" where car keys, etc. are confiscated by the employees whilst people are inebriated? Seems like a good middle ground to me if people absolutely MUST have it confined to a certain building, plus they aren't confined and are able to enjoy other peoples' company and not have Big Brother looming over them the whole time.


----------



## Krieger (Apr 11, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> Instead of that, why not have "marijuana bars"


Lol for a second I thought you meant like a candy bar... 
Guess I shouldn't stop reading things mid-sentence.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 11, 2013)

Krieger said:


> While marijuana is highly taxable and would bring a LOT of extra revenue, I must say that I find all types of drugs wrong. (Except for those used strictly as prescribed)
> That being said, there is only one way that I would accept a complete legalization of marijuana. I have told my idea to my friends, and they think it is absurd and radical, it kind of is.
> I believe that marijuana should be allowed provided that when you smoke it, you must pay a HUGE amount of money to do so, but you have to smoke it in an enclosed room in a government facility. Once the stuff is out of your system, you may leave.
> Yes, it is a pretty stupid idea, but it would make a lot of people feel safer, even though I have heard that marijuana does not make people more violent.



Why are drugs wrong other than the fact that they are illegal?  Is it wrong for people with cancer to take marijuana to ease the pain and to help with violent nausea?  I could go on and on but I wont.

Dude weed isn't fucking LSD. You don't need to be babysat by government officials.  This idea of yours is so fucking absurd it makes me want to jump out the window and run down the street ripping my hair out.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 11, 2013)

d.batty said:


> The military uses a lot of hemp rope cuz its stronger than regular rope.



Man

Imagine smoking a rope-long joint


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 11, 2013)

That would be painful x.x


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 11, 2013)

d.batty said:


> That would be painful x.x



Tackle it like it's a personal project or something!


----------



## Azure (Apr 11, 2013)

Gibby said:


> Tackle it like it's a personal project or something!


i once participated in the rolling of a half pound joint. it wasnt nearly as long as a rope. but it did get about 60 people high.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 11, 2013)

Damn and I thought the zip cross joint we smoked was big


----------



## Azure (Apr 11, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Damn and I thought the zip cross joint we smoked was big


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Apr 12, 2013)

I wish I had a half-pound joint.

Instead, I'm tokin' from a mini bub. 

A man can dream...


Also, I just heard some doctor on a radio show talk about how he did a study that showed that marijuana increased abstract thinking ability, creativity, and even INcreased IQ in the subjects that were under the influence, as opposed to the sober subjects actually showing a natural IQ drop over the course of the study. Or something like that.

I was admittedly pretty blitzed when I heard it. But it made me happy.

Plus, if I knew for a fact that it'd get me high, I would totally smoke a hemp rope.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 12, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> In large populations IQ is an effective  indicator of intelligence and general brain health in some scenarios.



We don't even know what causes intelligence, though.

What's the point in measuring something if you don't really know what that *something* is?

Furthermore, we are statistically correlating pot with IQ and pretending we have established causation (which we have not).



Ganjaman97 said:


> Weed  doesn't tend to last very long when you get ten stoners together in one  place. Especially if most of them are new to the culture and don't know  what the hell moderation is. I brought this story up to illustrate  exactly why moderation is important, and that I wouldn't have a right to  judge Azure for his habit.



It's not a matter of moderation; it's a simple matter of physics. You  would either need to smoke like 30 joints a piece, or roll that all up  into a few fat Cheech and Chong joints and lose most of the weed by  burning it away. Trust me, I'm not one to talk about moderation, or bad habits =P



Krieger said:


> I  believe that marijuana should be allowed provided that when you smoke  it, you must pay a HUGE amount of money to do so, but you have to smoke  it in an enclosed room in a government facility. Once the stuff is out  of your system, you may leave.
> Yes, it is a pretty stupid idea, but it would make a lot of people feel  safer, even though I have heard that marijuana does not make people more  violent.



... :V ???

I like how you admitted it's a stupid idea because that sounds pretty fucking ridiculous XD



Krieger said:


> Lol for a second I thought you meant like a candy bar...



They actually sell those here.

Chocolate bars that get you high.



d.batty said:


> Dude  weed isn't fucking LSD. You don't need to be babysat by government  officials.  This idea of yours is so fucking absurd it makes me want to  jump out the window and run down the street ripping my hair out.



LSD isn't even that bad, aside from possibly injuring yourself while on it.

The physical effects are negligible, if not non-existent.



Azure said:


> i once participated in the rolling of a half pound joint. it wasnt nearly as long as a rope. but it did get about 60 people high.



Wait wait wait... What?

I'm trying to picture a half pound rolled into a joint.

Not only does that sound absurd (did you like... stick together 120 rolling papers?) but you would burn most of the pot away.

I really hope that was low grade 'merch.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Apr 12, 2013)

You're positive moderation has nothing to do with it? It doesn't take long to go through a QP, if you've got newbies scorching the bowl, dropping bud, etc. Y'know, newbie problems. We've all had 'em. 

Silly goose.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 12, 2013)

In the news, 52% of Americans think marijuana should be legalized.

Ricky-
I know LSD isnt terribly bad for you.  I've done my fare share of blotter, cubes, and gel tabs.


----------



## LizardKing (Apr 12, 2013)

Since some people are talking about drugs and their use and whatnot, a quick reminder from the rules:



> [Do not] Admit to/enable illegal activity (the forums are bound by AZ state, PA state and US Federal law. Discussion is allowed within reason, but any admissions of guilt will result in an immediate ban and the user's information being provided to the proper authorities)



I am not sure of the laws regarding this in the US myself, but just be aware of what you're posting.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 12, 2013)

Ricky said:


> We don't even know what causes intelligence, though.
> 
> What's the point in measuring something if you don't really know what that *something* is?
> 
> ...



An exact and complete understanding of human intelligence is beyond current science, ergo iq tests are useless? 

I suppose because physics is incomplete that suspension bridges are pointless and that planes really ought to fall out of the sky, then. 

Despite the study of human intelligence being incomplete iq tests are still a useful measure of a group of subjects' intelligence. Even if you dispute the meaning of iq corresponding to a holistic interpretation of intelligence it never the less represents a measure of some of the aspects we can all agree are part of intelligence, such as spacial awareness and reasoning skills.

Causation was established as likely [not infallible] by the fact a specific age discrepency was noted in the study with respect to cannabis users who abandoned the drug.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 12, 2013)

For a study like that, yeah -- it is pretty much worthless.

An 8 point drop in something we don't understand doesn't mean anything, especially when people can raise their IQ just by reading. It seems pretty arbitrary at that point, especially with such a small sample size in a study that has never been reproduced (and probably never will).

For other studies maybe not.

I didn't say we need a complete understanding of something to use it, stop with the straw men.

And no, an age discrepancy doesn't show causation. You are pulling that out of your rear end =p

"rear end fallacy..."


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 12, 2013)

Ricky said:


> For a study like that, yeah -- it is pretty much worthless.
> 
> An 8 point drop in something we don't understand doesn't mean anything, especially when people can raise their IQ just by reading. It seems pretty arbitrary at that point, especially with such a small sample size in a study that has never been reproduced (and probably never will).
> 
> ...



You're repeating your fallacy. An 8 point drop puts a population at average IQ [which should be interpreted as problem solving skills and reasoning, not the pointless umbrella term 'intelligence' which people contort to wriggle out of argument] into the lowest third of the population. 

This change is an average over a great many individuals, so whether or not a single individual can change their iq by training for tests is not relevant; one could also improve their athletic performance by practicing on a treadmill, this would not nullify the effects of heart scarration and prove that over-exercise in athletes is 'perfectly healthy'. 

1000 is a significant sample size, not a small one. Observations over 38 years in 1000 people is statistically significant, not minute. If you think it is 'so small that it can be ignored entirely' then you have a poor appreciation of statistics. 

The age discrepancy strongly suggested cannabis was causally related because the effect cannabis use and refraint from cannabis use had was permanent or impermanent contigent on the age it was started- and hence the maturation of the brain. This is a crucial fact and it shouldn't be ignored. Cannabis use and brain maturation are causally entangled, and therefore it's not an unreasonable extrapolation to suggest that the other drops in iq, which bounced back after cannabis use was stopped, were related to cannabis. 

Again, I'm going to repeat that this isn't an argument to favour illegal status for cannabis. It is an epistemological concern; a great many people who take cannabis seem close-minded to the possibility that it could cause damage to them, permanent or impermanent, in any way. To the point they will insist that iq tests are pointless because people can improve their scores with practice [you can improve your score with practice in virtually any test of skill, whether it be intellectual or physical] and that studies with 1000 people in them are too small to detect what are actually significant overall changes in score when it's the same number of people used in a stage three clinical trial, which is usually undertaken over a much shorter time frame.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 12, 2013)

This isn't bias, dude. You are trying too hard to substantiate the study. They even said in the article it will be valuable information ONCE IT IS REPRODUCED. *They* even agree it has not been substantiated; why don't you?

Look, intelligence is complicated and I don't believe IQ is necessarily a measure of anything but problem solving and reasoning skills *at the time it is taken.* For all I know, if people are complete potheads through the age of 18 and don't learn anything they don't develop the wiring they need to use those skills to their full potential later in life.

But I said I smoke so this *must* all be bias, right? 

If there is anything that would have affected me it would be my heavy drinking for over a decade. Somehow I still manage to outperform most engineers I have worked with in a job that requires reasoning and problem solving.

It isn't bias; the article is simply non-subsantial.

It even states that in so many words.


----------



## Corto (Apr 12, 2013)

LizardKing said:


> I am not sure of the laws regarding this in the US myself, but just be aware of what you're posting.


Marijuana is restricted in AZ, illegal in PA (a recently introduced bill notwithstanding) and, I think, illegal under Federal Law. LSD is illegal everywhere.

So keep that in mind while posting.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 12, 2013)

Ricky said:


> This isn't bias, dude. You are trying too hard to substantiate the study. They even said in the article it will be valuable information ONCE IT IS REPRODUCED. *They* even agree it has not been substantiated; why don't you?
> 
> Look, intelligence is complicated and I don't believe IQ is necessarily a measure of anything but problem solving and reasoning skills *at the time it is taken.* For all I know, if people are complete potheads through the age of 18 and don't learn anything they don't develop the wiring they need to use those skills to their full potential later in life.
> 
> ...



Your reasons for thinking the article wasn't substantial, such as the sample size and the nature of iq tests, were frankly crap. I agree that it's not infallible. I do think it is strongly suggestive though and that 'we would like replocation' doesn't equate to 'you're entiteled to entirely dismiss our suggestions until that time'. 

Whatever your personal drug habits it's not really about you and whether or not you personally outcompete other people.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 12, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Your reasons for thinking the article wasn't substantial, such as the sample size and the nature of iq tests, were frankly crap. I agree that it's not infallible. I do think it is strongly suggestive though and that 'we would like replocation' doesn't equate to 'you're entiteled to entirely dismiss our suggestions until that time'.



Then you are saying the example I gave is unrealistic? That was just off the top of my head. It is likely the people under 18 who are smoking weed all the time aren't spending a lot of time learning. Your reasoning behind the age factor substantiating a physiological cause is negated if that fact could prevent the "necessary wiring" to form in order to develop those skills and use them later in life. I think that's a lot more realistic even than the argument "pot destroys your brain."

Regardless, you are jumping to conclusions that haven't been substantiated. That was only an example; I'm sure I could come up with more possible reasons for the results they saw.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 12, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Then you are saying the example I gave is unrealistic? That was just off the top of my head. It is likely the people under 18 who are smoking weed all the time aren't spending a lot of time learning. Your reasoning behind the age factor substantiating a physiological cause is negated if that fact could prevent the "necessary wiring" to form in order to develop those skills and use them later in life. I think that's a lot more realistic even than the argument "pot destroys your brain."
> 
> Regardless, you are jumping to conclusions that haven't been substantiated. That was only an example; I'm sure I could come up with more possible reasons for the results they saw.



Years of education were taken into account, although perhaps not quality of education? 
If separate studies indicate that 18 is a critical age in education among non-cannabis users, then that could be a plausible explanation; do you know of any? 
Nobody is arguing, furthermore that 'pot destroys your brain'. It does affect the brain's chemistry, and at a formative age changes in brain chemistry could cause an irreversible change. 

I agree there are other possible explanations but I thin it's best to er to the side of caution, which would mean accepting the possibility that if cannabis were made legal the age of 18 should be critical and that anybody using cannabis should be aware that it could be surpressing the IQ.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 12, 2013)

Oh, come on... Years of education?

You can slide through education and be a dumbass.

It happens all the time.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 12, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Oh, come on... Years of education?
> 
> You can slide through education and be a dumbass.
> 
> It happens all the time.



It would indeend have to happen all the time, or a very significant portion of it, to have such a large effect on a group of 1000. 

Are there any studies on the quality of education pre-18* and the influence on capacity to change IQ this has post-18? Because that would be grand.

*In non-cannabis users.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Apr 12, 2013)

I love all of you guys and this fighting is making me sad.Q_O


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 12, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> I love all of you guys and this fighting is making me sad.Q_O



Love you too <3

This thread is for discussion, and we're discussing, so there's nothing untoward going on. I still think ricky's a right cuddle-muffin.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Apr 12, 2013)

Y'all bof sum cuddle-muffins. :3

Anyway, marijuana's mainly illegal because William Randolph Hearst ran a smear campaign against it to protect his interests in the lumber industry, as hemp was poised to replace it as a cheap, durable, and abundant building material.

He did this by claiming that it caused reefer madness, and Babylon's been against it ever since.

As a side subject, how's everybody doin' today?


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 12, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> That he are. :3
> 
> Anyway, marijuana's mainly illegal because William Randolph Hearst ran a smear campaign against it to protect his interests in the lumber industry, as hemp was poised to replace it as a cheap, durable, and abundant building material.
> 
> ...


 
I've heard about the smear campaign before. Intriguingly in the UK arsenic and lead were not outlawed for use in wallpapers and toys and so forth for many 
decades after surrounding countries in europe had banned them. The UK had large arsenic mines in Cornwall.


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Apr 12, 2013)

Kinda fucked up, right? Herb helps people. But they keep cigarettes and alcohol legal. I think he government does that on purpose. We buy those things that give us health problems and get addicted. They then cause our health to decline, so we go to doctors to pay for treatment with money that ends right back in Downpressor man's pockets.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 12, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I still think ricky's a right cuddle-muffin.



You, too ^_^

Seriously, don't get my posting style confused with *actual emotion*


----------



## Ganjaman97 (Apr 12, 2013)

I'm feelin' the love here, now. Ha ha!

Got I aand I feelin' pretty Irie with Mama Earth. ^_^


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 12, 2013)

Ganjaman97 said:


> Kinda fucked up, right? Herb helps people. But they keep cigarettes and alcohol legal. I think he government does that on purpose. We buy those things that give us health problems and get addicted. They then cause our health to decline, so we go to doctors to pay for treatment with money that ends right back in Downpressor man's pockets.



I'm not so sure about that. Human illness is inevitable, so it's not like a market in it needs to be created and there are a great deal of drugs which are legal that do not cause substantial health problems. 

Instead I think the culutral history of the drugs is the reason for their respective legalities. [although in england at least smoking was not banned in one case centuries ago when the king, who hated it, was persuaded he could tax the stuff- he wasn't aware of the carcinogenic effects however]


----------



## DMAN14 (Apr 21, 2013)

I go to school in Colorado, where its been legalized. Basically, I don't want anything to do with, or do I want those I truly care about it to have anything to do with it. Same as I would with cigarettes. So I don't have a huge opinion (even though they have caused significant events in my life). Really I know I will never do drugs, and don't want my loved ones to either.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 21, 2013)

Corto said:


> Marijuana is restricted in AZ, illegal in PA (a recently introduced bill notwithstanding) and, I think, illegal under Federal Law. LSD is illegal everywhere.
> 
> So keep that in mind while posting.


Marijuana is legal in Washington and Colorado as of recently.  Also mentioning something that you have done in the past isn't illegal.  You have to be caught with it or under the influence of it to be prosecuted.

But I get what your saying so I'll keep it to myself from now on


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 21, 2013)

d.batty said:


> *Marijuana is legal in Washington and Colorado as of recently*.  Also mentioning something that you have done in the past isn't illegal.  You have to be caught with it or under the influence of it to be prosecuted.
> 
> But I get what your saying so I'll keep it to myself from now on



Legal on the state level, but not federal level if I am right? How is that going; is the federal government bothered or are they more relaxed about it?


----------



## Ricky (Apr 21, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Legal on the state level, but not federal level if I am right? How is that going; is the federal government bothered or are they more relaxed about it?



The federal government doesn't really have any jurisdiction when it comes to people smoking the stuff.

However, even with medical pot, they busted half the dispensaries in San Francisco. (i.e. felony dealing, whatever)

I wouldn't be surprised if they did something similar with these.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 21, 2013)

Ricky said:


> The federal government doesn't really have any jurisdiction when it comes to people smoking the stuff.
> 
> However, even with medical pot, they busted half the dispensaries in San Francisco.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if they did something similar with these.



I think the reason those dispensaries were busted was because they were accused of handing it out like candy? Correct me if I am wrong. 

Anyway I think it would be interesting to treat the legalisations as a test, to see if any of the bad things government expects from legalised drugs_ actually _happen.


----------



## Toshabi (Apr 21, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Marijuana is legal in Washington and Colorado as of recently.  Also mentioning something that you have done in the past isn't illegal.  You have to be caught with it or under the influence of it to be prosecuted.
> 
> But I get what your saying so I'll keep it to myself from now on




It's okay. Everyone on the forum knows how l33t hardcore y0l0 you are.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 21, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I think the reason those dispensaries were busted was because they were accused of handing it out like candy? Correct me if I am wrong.



They were very good about checking ID's and cards and all that.

I used to go to one all the time that later got busted.

I'm pretty sure they did it because of preemption.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 21, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Legal on the state level, but not federal level if I am right? How is that going; is the federal government bothered or are they more relaxed about it?


Well yeah it's always gunna be illegal on a federal level.  No doubt about that.

So far the Feds havnt done anything and I havnt heard of them trying to do anything either.  We'll see as time goes by.


----------



## Rigby (Apr 21, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Well yeah it's always gunna be illegal on a federal level.  No doubt about that.



Well unless the federal laws are found to be unconstitutional, which they are.


----------



## Azure (Apr 21, 2013)

Rigby said:


> Well unless the federal laws are found to be unconstitutional, which they are.


nothing is more unconstitutional than the DEA and its unilateral, overarching, unquestioned powers. its pretty much a terrorist organization with a great pr department, and failing that, friends in high places, the backing of uninformed public opinion, bottomless coffers, and a legal team that makes johnny cochran look like a chump. oh and faceless assassins.


----------



## Belluavir (Apr 21, 2013)

My guess is that more and more states will legalize it and in about a decade there will be a Supreme Court case deciding on the constitutionality of DEA activities in states where it has been legalized, and I think there's a pretty good chance that they'd rule against the DEA, but who knows. I doubt very much though that there would ever be legislation against it, there's too much money in it.


----------

