| I think for adults over 21 yes but for kids and teens NO. Why?Well back then when I was around that age 14 to 19(I'm 21 now)It was fun to do illegal things like writing graffiti or skateboarding in a no skateboarding zone or smoking a joint and then trying to hide the smell of fresh colombian marijuana from your parents. So why take away the rush and excitement kids feel while doing illegal things? |
 |
ReaperEXE said: Yeah, let's make cocaine and meth legal, I'm sure that won't blow up in our faces at all."The government is corrupt, which is the only reason it's illegal." is a pretty ignorant statement. Using the legality of alcohol is bullshit. Yeah, it's legal, but guess what, people abuse it now more than ever. In the current generation, making something illegal, legal, is just incentive to use. It's still the same drug, it gets you the same high, but now it's easier to get. That backwards retarded logic about making drugs legal will incur moderation or abhorrence pretty much went out the window a good 20 years ago. It's not bullshit. Alcohol kills more people than marijuana does, so why is it legal in the first place? laws are there to protect and help benefit society, they are not set in stone for eternity. Would you be willing to take the same stance if public execution was still legal? of course not. Why should you do it with alcohol? just because you don't experience the negative effects doesn't mean it's fine the way it is. Society is continuously evolving and laws on marijuana need to change just like the average person's perception on what is 'good' or 'bad'. |
| Anime nurds n' their ignorant opinion on weed. It should be legal and taxed,anyone who says otherwise is wrong. |
| lol @ img bbcode not working, mal is such a great site |
jkun said: ReaperEXE said: Yeah, let's make cocaine and meth legal, I'm sure that won't blow up in our faces at all."The government is corrupt, which is the only reason it's illegal." is a pretty ignorant statement. Using the legality of alcohol is bullshit. Yeah, it's legal, but guess what, people abuse it now more than ever. In the current generation, making something illegal, legal, is just incentive to use. It's still the same drug, it gets you the same high, but now it's easier to get. That backwards retarded logic about making drugs legal will incur moderation or abhorrence pretty much went out the window a good 20 years ago. It's not bullshit. Alcohol kills more people than marijuana does, so why is it legal in the first place? laws are there to protect and help benefit society, they are not set in stone for eternity. Would you be willing to take the same stance if public execution was still legal? of course not. Why should you do it with alcohol? just because you don't experience the negative effects doesn't mean it's fine the way it is. Society is continuously evolving and laws on marijuana need to change just like the average person's perception on what is 'good' or 'bad'. Alcohol was illegal but thanks to us Americans, it's legal again. As for marijuana, I really don't know if it should be legal or not. Where I come from, it just leads to ignorance and people coming into class with bloodshot eyes. But marijuana is apparently less damaging than other forms of drugs and alcohol. In my opinion, then, I suppose it should be taxed but maybe eliminate cigarettes or something. |
| Hell, I don't care. Legalize it and tax is like no tomorrow. My only beef is that it smells terrible and I ALWAYS end up in the vicinity of someone smoking it at a concert. Egh. |
Kuradachi said: Alcohol was illegal but thanks to us Americans, it's legal again. That's only in the US. It was made illegal in 1920 and made legal again in 1933. I think each country is different when it comes to alcohol. |
jkun said: Interesting, maybe I'll read up on the actual article.Bah, I read the article. Like his earlier article in '97, it consisted a lot of maybes and not enough conclusive evidence (which is not really a bad thing). The article suggest THC may be an anti-tumoral agent, but then flipped the coin and stated another study that it may be augment cancerous growth because it's a strong immunosuppressor. Anyways, his epidemiological study wasn't about the effect of THC anyways, it was just identifying if an association between lung cancer patients and marijuana users exists. Overall, it gave some data that support marijuana as a lesser deadly agent than tobacco. From what I got out of it, tobacco is has a stronger association to lung cancer than marijuana. His study showed a weak association, thus he suggest "it is possible that marijuana use does not increase cancer risk". But it is far from conclusive, which is more or less the same with the '97 article I listed. That article never stated conclusively that marijuana was a strong carcinogen (most science articles usually don't anyways), just that it may be a carcinogen with data from various lab experiments. And really, in the '97 article, Tashkin also included epidemiological human surveys data and how it had "mixed results". Which is probably why he underwent the large survey study in the first place. Still, just because the article was a decade older than yours, doesn't mean the article is "wrong", or that I'm misinformed. :[ Anyways, it is partially my problem to provide a science article to a post that suggested causality (science rarely dealt with absolute causality). So I guess that's how this discussion began. Nevertheless, it did make me read an article, which is bloody rare for me since I'm so bored of them in class. |
TachiiJul 25, 2011 1:19 PM
Tachii said: jkun said: Interesting, maybe I'll read up on the actual article.Bah, I read the article. Like his earlier article in '97, it consisted a lot of maybes and not enough conclusive evidence (which is not really a bad thing). The article suggest THC may be an anti-tumoral agent, but then flipped the coin and stated another study that it may be augment cancerous growth because it's a strong immunosuppressor. Anyways, his epidemiological study wasn't about the effect of THC anyways, it was just identifying if an association between lung cancer patients and marijuana users exists. Overall, it gave some data that support marijuana as a lesser deadly agent than tobacco. From what I got out of it, tobacco is has a stronger association to lung cancer than marijuana. His study showed a weak association, thus he suggest "it is possible that marijuana use does not increase cancer risk". But it is far from conclusive, which is more or less the same with the '97 article I listed. That article never stated conclusively that marijuana was a strong carcinogen (most science articles usually don't anyways), just that it may be a carcinogen with data from various lab experiments. And really, in the '97 article, Tashkin also included epidemiological human surveys data and how it had "mixed results". Which is probably why he underwent the large survey study in the first place. Still, just because the article was a decade older than yours, doesn't mean the article is "wrong", or that I'm misinformed. :[ Anyways, it is partially my problem to provide a science article to a post that suggested causality (science rarely dealt with absolute causality). So I guess that's how this discussion began. Nevertheless, it did make me read an article, which is bloody rare for me since I'm so bored of them in class. People find out new research within a year usually. Crap like that becomes obsolete after like 3-5 years for the most part. |
| Taxes on Marijuana = Revenue :D :D :D :D |
| Click on this. I dare you. | MAL Fantasy Football League | Currently Watching List RWBY Club. RWBY is anime. Deal with it. |
Drunk_Samurai said: Not really. These so called yearly research that would actually replace old research would have to be something of a breakthrough, and most research are not breakthroughs. They usually either reinforce old research or put a doubt on past research which inevitably needs more research.People find out new research within a year usually. Crap like that becomes obsolete after like 3-5 years for the most part. |
Tachii said: Drunk_Samurai said: Not really. These so called yearly research that would actually replace old research would have to be something of a breakthrough, and most research are not breakthroughs. They usually either reinforce old research or put a doubt on past research which inevitably needs more research.People find out new research within a year usually. Crap like that becomes obsolete after like 3-5 years for the most part. I meant new information not new research. What I mean is they discover something new and it makes the old information obsolete for the most part. Its like how some people try to post an old study from the 1970s about abortion and rape victims. |
| Who cares. Whether or not it's legal, those who wants it will have access to it. I mean, it's so easy to find it might as well be legal already. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Schonn said: THIS is pretty noteworthy. Tackles most of your arguments here. As for me, I'm neutral. I could care less whether it gets legalized or not. That guy is an idiot. 1) Of course it wouldn't save the economy but it would save a lot of tax payer money by not putting people who smoke weed in jail. 2) Apparently people are not supposed to care about people with cancer 3) "In fact, just three joints a day do as much damage to the lungs as twenty cigarettes. "In fact, just three joints a day do as much damage to the lungs as twenty cigarettes." Goddamn liar. Cigarettes do far more damage to your lungs than weed would ever do. 4) They should all be legal. When people use shitty arguments about keeping weed illegal then that argument can easily counter it. Shit, some people even say to make all of it illegal using that argument. "The end result is still that you're arguing for the right to make things worse than they were before. "The end result is still that you're arguing for the right to make things worse than they were before." That made me lol. If weed was legal it would make things better than they were before. 5) *facepalm* Marijuana is a mental addiction and not a physical addiction like cocaine and heroin. Even though he did mention that he makes it sound like marijuana is worst or just as bad. "But just keep in mind: if you want to see a day when the cops won't hassle you for smoking it, you're going to need to be a lot smarter about how you argue the issue, that's all I'm saying. "But just keep in mind: if you want to see a day when the cops won't hassle you for smoking it, you're going to need to be a lot smarter about how you argue the issue, that's all I'm saying." Or you can stop being an idiot and using your own stupid arguments. |
alexcampos said: Fucking brilliant idea. Hear, hear!KyuuAL said: Yes. And tax the hell out of it. Perfect answer, not to mention the U.S desperately needs it... |
| Not sure how this works but what I'd think... 1. Legalize it. Double the regular price of cigarettes and triple the taxes. Set the age limit to 21-25 minimum. State government will be in charge of what kind is and is not allowed to be sold. 2. Create public establishments where you can buy and smoke approved by state government. Licence for this establishment will need to be purchased. Charge a flat rate and fixed time limit for smoking plus a cooldown time on recovering from your buzz. Charge movie theater prices for snacks sold at said establishment. Have valet services reccommended. In order to use said establishment, you have to have a permit acquired from a DMV or courthouse and be at least 21-25 of age. 3. Home growers need to purchase a licence acquired from a state establishment. This will have to be renewed every 6 months. Anything grown must be randomly inspected by a state official. 4. Public use outside of buildings will be prohibited. Fines of up to $600 and/or jailtime will be enforced. Additional fines may be added if in establishments accessable to minors such as schools, shopping malls, or recreational areas. Minors will be charged as adults for use - no exceptions. Medicinal use will require to stay indoors at all times during treatment. 5. Use while operating machinery or motor vehicles is prohibited. Fines and jailtime will be enforced and will be doubled of that of DUI. 6. Any unauthorized product not approved by the state will be treated as contrabound and confiscated/destroyed. A fine and jailtime will be enforced to those in possession and supplying. Well, you get the idea. There's no problem to be a pothead, just make sure you're a smart and/or rich one if it gets legalized. |
| It will most definitely help the economy, give police less shit to cry about, gangs to stop smuggling, and a lot more potheads. Personally, I'm all for it. I don't give a fuck if you destroy your brain cells. |
 |
| OFC it should be legal its just a plant. Real reason its illegal is because pharmaceutical companies sell it to patients and they do not want their profit cut, so they pay the government a large yearly fee to restrict it has a illegal drug . |
ChrisBlizzard said: put everyone who smokes weed in their own country and keep them away from me. You are one of the millions of ignorant twats that think all marijuana users are losers. If you had done just a tiny bit of research on this subject (which you take such a strong stance on) you would know that most people that smoke or consume marijuana are just your average citizen. Carl Sagan didn't sit on the couch all day and eat cereal, but.. but.. but.. how is this possible? you may ask. In this day and age where technology is at your fingertips it is very easy to become lazy. If someone chooses not to smoke weed then he/she will find another addiction and continue to make excuses as to why they're not enjoying or succeeding in life. A lazy person cannot blame weed for being lazy, just as Sagan didn't let weed get in the way of becoming the person he was. People like yourself have such a huge ego that the possibility of being wrong about something doesn't even cross your mind. You sit there on your high horse looking down at others that don't meet your standards or morals. If anything it's not the "losers" in this world that are bringing down society, it's those that are unable to accept that life is too complicated to be completely understood in a single lifetime. You are only 30 years of age, are you trying to tell me that you've got it all figured out? Rubbish |
byoushinJul 30, 2011 8:03 AM
RamenSoup43 said: Not sure how this works but what I'd think... 1. Legalize it. Double the regular price of cigarettes and triple the taxes. Set the age limit to 21-25 minimum. State government will be in charge of what kind is and is not allowed to be sold. 2. Create public establishments where you can buy and smoke approved by state government. Licence for this establishment will need to be purchased. Charge a flat rate and fixed time limit for smoking plus a cooldown time on recovering from your buzz. Charge movie theater prices for snacks sold at said establishment. Have valet services reccommended. In order to use said establishment, you have to have a permit acquired from a DMV or courthouse and be at least 21-25 of age. 3. Home growers need to purchase a licence acquired from a state establishment. This will have to be renewed every 6 months. Anything grown must be randomly inspected by a state official. 4. Public use outside of buildings will be prohibited. Fines of up to $600 and/or jailtime will be enforced. Additional fines may be added if in establishments accessable to minors such as schools, shopping malls, or recreational areas. Minors will be charged as adults for use - no exceptions. Medicinal use will require to stay indoors at all times during treatment. 5. Use while operating machinery or motor vehicles is prohibited. Fines and jailtime will be enforced and will be doubled of that of DUI. 6. Any unauthorized product not approved by the state will be treated as contrabound and confiscated/destroyed. A fine and jailtime will be enforced to those in possession and supplying. Well, you get the idea. There's no problem to be a pothead, just make sure you're a smart and/or rich one if it gets legalized. Fuck no. That age limit is absolutely fucked up. |
| I still can't find an answer to, "Why is it illegal to begin with?" It's not like cigarettes and alcohol are any better, and Yanoflies said: this, it's just how stupid this prohibition is. Back when alcohol was prohibited, at least then, the U.S. was smarter and repealed the prohibition.I mean, it's so easy to find it might as well be legal already. The fact it's still illegal nowadays is due to laziness, and/or bias against how "bad" uneducated people make it look. |
 |
| Nope - Not that I care about this subject rather much but having a weed weekend isn't really something I would see as "healthy" nor from what the "long-term effect" weed has. Although they could at least go a bit down with the drug war in the US, since having an awful economy and doing an very expensive operation which takes years and years to even get an result is rather idiotic if you ask me. |
 |
Piperun said: having a weed weekend isn't really something I would see as "healthy" nor from what the "long-term effect" weed has. What makes it unhealthy? |
jkun said: Piperun said: having a weed weekend isn't really something I would see as "healthy" nor from what the "long-term effect" weed has. What makes it unhealthy? Just making up bullshit. |
Drunk_Samurai said: jkun said: What makes it unhealthy? Just making up bullshit. Well that might be person to person, I could of course bring up the arguments for it but then again it would mostly only result in "Government Propaganda/lies". |
|
Piperun said: Drunk_Samurai said: jkun said: What makes it unhealthy? Just making up bullshit. Well that might be person to person, I could of course bring up the arguments for it but then again it would mostly only result in "Government Propaganda/lies". It's pretty hard for us to say "government propaganda" if it comes from a reliable source. However, if it doesn't come from a proper source it's obviously bullshit. If you don't want to provide evidence for your claims then we know which one it is =) |
| You have to question one thing: What help does it do society? Marijuana makes people high (Last time I checked), destroys your system, and makes people do irrational things. Then again smoking and alcohol do pretty much the same things to you as well, and I don't think those things will become illegal anytime soon. The only "good" marijuana will do is make people high and addicted. It'll set off a bad example, I guess. I personally think it shouldn't be legalized. Dammit, I'm so bad in expressing opinions. |
Sanguis said: Marijuana makes people high Each person's definition of "high" is different. It's not necessarily a bad thing. Sanguis said: destroys your system source for this? Sanguis said: makes people do irrational things. Uh, no it doesn't. Indica (what most teenagers smoke) makes you feel relaxed. Sativa motivates you and allows you to focus easier, as well as having health benefits. Sanguis said: The only "good" marijuana will do is make people high and addicted. Only Alcohol and Nictone cause physical addictions, Marijuana does not. The only "addiction" to Marijuana is the same type of addiction someone could get with anything else they enjoy, ie. video games, anime, blogging, etc. |
jkun said: It's pretty hard for us to say "government propaganda" if it comes from a reliable source. However, if it doesn't come from a proper source it's obviously bullshit. If you don't want to provide evidence for your claims then we know which one it is =) Alright, if you really want to know it, it's more or less a much more "stronger" drug than normal alcohol in terms of behavior in brain activity since around 40-60% of the "drunkenness" is just an illusion by your brain, while marijuana is not an illusion at all since it stimulates various parts of your brain. From that it affects your coordination, Audio or visual distortion, time perception, feelings from joy to sadness, secure to insecure. Abuses of this has been claimed over a long-term of usage to have negative effect on both performance and personality. In terms it would "eat up" your personality and make it more or less blank and since it affects the brains release of dopamine it also brace an impact on your way of living within the feelings of joy, happiness, etc. In other terms it would lower the rates of you becoming more happy or having joyful moments in your life. Also about Mental addiction it's true, but that is also one of the reason it is as it is now, if you try to tell a "computer addicted" person to quit would he do it because he isn't physically addicted to the computer? It's also something the government/society wouldn't want to see that a vast majority is late, sick, not preforming top-notch because of an "item". |
|
Piperun said: Alright, if you really want to know it, it's more or less a much more "stronger" drug than normal alcohol in terms of behavior in brain activity since around 40-60% of the "drunkenness" is just an illusion by your brain, while marijuana is not an illusion at all since it stimulates various parts of your brain. It is true that Marijuana does stimulate the brain more than Alcohol but you are not put into a "drunkenness" state. Piperun said: From that it affects your coordination, Audio or visual distortion, time perception, feelings from joy to sadness, secure to insecure. People have different experiences with Marijauna just like if they were to take any other drug, so simply saying "from joy to sadness, secure to insecure" etc doesn't really prove anything. The majority of people who have experienced Sativa have gone from negatives to the positives. Piperun said: Abuses of this has been claimed over a long-term of usage to have negative effect on both performance and personality. It has only been claimed by anti-Marijuana groups. I haven't seen a single study that has actually provided clear proof to back this claim up. Piperun said: Also about Mental addiction it's true, but that is also one of the reason it is as it is now, if you try to tell a "computer addicted" person to quit would he do it because he isn't physically addicted to the computer? So we should ban everything that is enjoyable just because it could be mentally addicting? Piperun said: In terms it would "eat up" your personality and make it more or less blank and since it affects the brains release of dopamine it also brace an impact on your way of living within the feelings of joy, happiness, etc. In other terms it would lower the rates of you becoming more happy or having joyful moments in your life. It's also something the government/society wouldn't want to see that a vast majority is late, sick, not preforming top-notch because of an "item". I strongly disagree. The number of people that blame Marijuana for being late, sick, not performing, etc, is tiny compared to the amount of people that have had positive effects. Here's an example of someone that has not been effecting by your fairy tale. Joe Rogan is one of the most well known advocates for Marijuana (psychedelics in general) at the moment and he seems to be doing just fine. For those that don't know who he is, he is a comedian and a commentator for the UFC. - He goes to the Gym for a couple hours every day - He has a wife and children to take care of - He performs standup comedy multiple times a month - Travels the world to commentate for the UFC - Hosts a 2 hour podcast multiple times a week Do you honestly think he would be able to keep this busy schedule if Marijuana had such an effect? I don't think so. Joe is not super human or unique, he is just your average person that enjoys the benefits of Marijuana. If your friend sits on the couch all day smoking joints and watching cartoons I am sorry to say but they are are loser. |
byoushinJul 31, 2011 7:41 AM
| It wont stop people from smoking it. |
Sanguis said: You have to question one thing: What help does it do society? Marijuana makes people high (Last time I checked), destroys your system, and makes people do irrational things. Then again smoking and alcohol do pretty much the same things to you as well, and I don't think those things will become illegal anytime soon. The only "good" marijuana will do is make people high and addicted. It'll set off a bad example, I guess. I personally think it shouldn't be legalized. Dammit, I'm so bad in expressing opinions. *facepalm* Marijuana won't make people addicted like you think it will. A person can quit it any time they want to because it is a mental addiction and not physical addiction. Its like people who are addicted to anime and video games. Piperun said: jkun said: Also about Mental addiction it's true, but that is also one of the reason it is as it is now, if you try to tell a "computer addicted" person to quit would he do it because he isn't physically addicted to the computer? Fallacy. |
jkun said: It is true that Marijuana does stimulate the brain more than Alcohol but you are not put into a "drunkenness" state. I never state marijuana put you into an drunkenness state. jkun said: People have different experiences with Marijauna just like if they were to take any other drug, so simply saying "from joy to sadness, secure to insecure" etc doesn't really prove anything. The majority of people who have experienced Sativa have gone from negatives to the positives. If you mean Sativa as in Cannabis sativa, I would see that as 100% that everyone will feel joy, happiness from it. Since we are different and it is expected that different effects will give different results. jkun said: It has only been claimed by anti-Marijuana groups. I haven't seen a single study that has actually provided clear proof to back this claim up. That's quite odd then, since I have never heard it from people who were anti-Marijuana groups. jkun said: So we should ban everything that is enjoyable just because it could be mentally addicting? Unfortunately that is something isn't possible to be done in the near future, but that is not the case I wanted to address there. As it doesn't provide any benefit for the person/persons smoking it more than 15-2 hours of stimulation. It wouldn't give anything more than to take away something from a person to experience an "high" feeling and nothing else or more. jkun said: Joe Rogan is one of the most well known advocates for Marijuana (psychedelics in general) at the moment and he seems to be doing just fine. For those that don't know who he is, he is a comedian and a commentator for the UFC. - He goes to the Gym for a couple hours every day - He has a wife and children to take care of - He performs standup comedy multiple times a month - Travels the world to commentate for the UFC - Hosts a 2 hour podcast multiple times a week And I said something about the people supporting the marijuana? Sure in the near future I will do that, but right now it's the marijuana we're talking about. Overall he doesn't really look like the average joe to me, more like the "anti-American/capitalism" oh and also just remembered he again is the "best" champ with Kung-fu and knows really well what "martial art" you shouldn't teach. Yeah again, I said it's long-term based, not short-termed. And then again he seems like the guy who doesn't consume it everyday / Control himself, even still I hate him. |
|
| I do not see how health effects are of any matter. What matters is whether there are direct health consequences to other people, ones who do not choose to partake, and there isn't because marijuana is not magical, and therefore there is no more to debate. People should decide themselves what to do. Not that marijuana is very much harmful at all, it's just a nonissue whether it is. Piperun said: ...You've never heard anti-marijuana groups claim that marijuana has negative consequences for your health and person?jkun said: It has only been claimed by anti-Marijuana groups. I haven't seen a single study that has actually provided clear proof to back this claim up. That's quite odd then, since I have never heard it from people who were anti-Marijuana groups. Quod. In general, I have no idea what you are saying, your syntax is too queer. Drunk_Samurai said: It is not because it is 'mental' rather than 'physical' you can quit whenever you like (well, not really, but easier to give up than alcohol or cigarettes), 'mental' addiction can be harder to break than 'physical', they are not innately weaker. *facepalm* Marijuana won't make people addicted like you think it will. A person can quit it any time they want to because it is a mental addiction and not physical addiction. Its like people who are addicted to anime and video games. It is because marijuana is not a strongly addictive substance. Still stronger than LSD or Ecstasy though. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
| the best thing ever is cutting back on the weed for a week and then smoking some good kush. Messes you up for HOURS. And really badly too! weed+dubstep=life I don't care if it's legal or not. I'd actually prefer it be illegal since i would hate for the government to regulate all the weed and water it down. I like the strong stuff that puts you on your ass for hours on end. |
| let me just add something here. A lot of people are convinced smoking weed is bad for you. Well you would be correct, and also incorrect. It ultimately depends on how you take it in. Literally. If you smoke weed from an unfiltered weed cigarette or 'splif' then yes, the smoke inhalation can be as bad as up to 5 lite cigarettes. But lets face it, no one who is an avid smoker and knows a thing or two about the drug would smoke only splifs. Not only are splifs inefficient of getting a nice high, but the only real use for them is for the concealment because of the illegal nature in many areas of the world. The more common and much less harmful ways of smoking involve bongs, perculators and vaporizors. These smoking utensils are among natural smoke filters, from single to double to triple filtered. With these utensils the smoke is filtered and only the THC is inhaled as a vapor. The THC travels to the lungs which is transfered to your blood stream and taken to your brain thus numbing the nerve endings in the part of your brain that recalls short term memory, the temporal lobe. This is the part where people often get the 'facts' that it is bad for your memory and may kill brain cells. Well this is a misconception. Studies are inconclusive about the effects of weed on the human brain over an extended period of time. Most 'facts' people seem to ignorantly spew are based on real results of long term abuse of rats. Thats right, RATS. THC does not affect human brains like it does rat brains. Thats why the study results are inconclusive In my own case, i've been an avid user for a couple years now. Long enough for long term effects to show, however i find no inability to learn or remember. In fact i would say i am more of an intellect if i were to be described in one word. So it may be worth the effort of reserving ones opinion before they know the facts, as i have read some very ignorant posts in this thread. Thanks for reading. |
archonfluxJul 31, 2011 9:28 PM
| I think we should all live our lives exercising 5 times a day, drinking water and eating lots of vegetables. It's fascism that's healthy and happy for everyone! |
archonflux said: you are dumb, i mean really really dumb, where are you getting your facts.If you smoke weed from an unfiltered weed cigarette or 'splif' then yes, the smoke inhalation can be as bad as up to 5 lite cigarettes. But lets face it, no one who is an avid smoker and knows a thing or two about the drug would smoke only splifs. Not only are splifs inefficient of getting a nice high, but the only real use for them is for the concealment because of the illegal nature in many areas of the world. The more common and much less harmful ways of smoking involve bongs, perculators and vaporizors. These smoking utensils are among natural smoke filters, from single to double to triple filtered. With these utensils the smoke is filtered and only the THC is inhaled as a vapor. The THC travels to the lungs which is transfered to your blood stream and taken to your brain thus numbing the nerve endings in the part of your brain that recalls short term memory, the temporal lobe. This is the part where people often get the 'facts' that it is bad for your memory and may kill brain cells. Well this is a misconception. Studies are inconclusive about the effects of weed on the human brain over an extended period of time. Most 'facts' people seem to ignorantly spew are based on real results of long term abuse of rats. Thats right, RATS. THC does not affect human brains like it does rat brains. Thats why the study results are inconclusive In my own case, i've been an avid user for a couple years now. Long enough for long term effects to show, however i find no inability to learn or remember. In fact i would say i am more of an intellect if i were to be described in one word. So it may be worth the effort of reserving ones opinion before they know the facts, as i have read some very ignorant posts in this thread. Thanks for reading. Cannabis and tobacco have about the same level of carcinogens as each other, albeit different specific ones at different concentrations, this isn't really due to anything in particular about each substance, rather the carcinogens are produced when you combust plant matter. smoke compositions of each can be found here How ever that is the smoke composition for pure unadulterated tobacco, which isn't in your manufactured cigarettes, since there is tar and Polonium 210 and lead 210 in the phosphate based fertilizer that is used to cultivate tobacco, this causes a bunch of alpha radiation inside of your lungs which is part of the reason lung cancer is caused. [E.A. Martel, "Alpha Radiation Dose at Bronchial Bifurcations From Indoor Exposure to Radon Progeny", Proceeds of the National Academy of Science, Vol. 80, pp. 1285-1289, March 1983.] So all in all marijuana is a bit safer than regular cigs, but we are not done yet, now look at the main active chemical in each, the cannabinoid delta 9 THC for pot and nicotine for tobacco. Nicotine has had extensive research conducted on it so it goes without saying that it is addictive as hell, as a personal testament to this i had a friend who was addicted to meth, heroin, crack, alcohol, and pretty much any other drug he could get his hands on. He is now clean and back at the university but the one drug he didn't quit was tobacco. delta 9 THC is not as well researched and thus less is known about it, but here are a few things that are known for sure, it is an odd neurotransmitter that actually exerts its action MAINLY, not exclusively, through retrograde transfer inactivating GABA receptors...in English this means that it turns off an inhibitory receptor, thus making it indirectly excitatory. How this affects brain chemistry is even less known, it obviously binds to the CB1 and CB2 receptors but the macroscopic effects are hard to quantify. What is known for sure is that it: -changes how one learns by promoting the extinction of aversive memories through decreased synaptic plasicity. -Another thing that is known to to have an analgesic action that doesn't really rely on internal opioids. -it alters your vision, I don't even need to explain this if you've smoked before it's obvious. -It lowers inflammation and your allergic response, so if your allergys are kicking in smoke a bowl. -finally it is actually neuroprotective in certain situations, like from toxins, hypoxia, and head trauma. van der Stelt M, Veldhuis WB, Bar PR, Veldink GA, et al. "Neuroprotection by Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active compound in marijuana, against ouabain-induced in vivo excitotoxicity." J Neurosci. 2001; 21(17):6475-6479 one last note there is a way to smoke weed to get high with hardly any carcinogens entering your lungs, through a vaporizer, just think about it, all the plant matter stays behind and you get high. kaiserpingvin said: It is not because it is 'mental' rather than 'physical' you can quit whenever you like (well, not really, but easier to give up than alcohol or cigarettes), 'mental' addiction can be harder to break than 'physical', they are not innately weaker. It is because marijuana is not a strongly addictive substance. Still stronger than LSD or Ecstasy though. When you said that last thing you better not be looking at that stupid graph on wikipedia, cause that thing has no credibility. Also your distinction between mental and physical addiction is archaic and not really used anymore, rather the emphasis is now on behavioral addiction, google that and read up on it. |
| you're a real dick, and i mean a real dick. I'm happy for you that you have so many facts that no one gives a shit about. In the end, you insulted me and then said the exact same thing i said in the quoted post above. I said weed cigarettes aka unfiltered splifs cause as much damage as cigarettes through smoke inhalation, and concentration of carcinogens has everything to do with it. 1 lite cigarette will not match the carcinogenical level as 1 weed cigarette. It will be less. Then you got into all this bullshit about carcinogens, which is correct, so you have researched well, but is still as hazardous. All you did was enter symantics and factual responses that correspond with exactly as i said, which is way easier for the average person to comprehend. I talk about the safe way to smoke using utensils such as vaporizers, then you insult me and corroborate exactly what i just said. What is your deal man. Lets look at it this way. No one cares how much you know if you can't communicate it in a sociable and polite manner. All you're doing is making yourself look like an ass while corroborating my post. I don't know why i'm arguing with someones post that said the same shit i said. I know this is a forum but damn, learn some manners. |
archonflux said: Finally something we can agree upon, I am a real dick and an asshole, however I am an educated dick so listen.you're a real dick, and i mean a real dick. Idk if regional slang is different but from the people I've know and the time I've been smoking a spliff is tobacco and weed mixed, while a joint is pure pot. Also if you would of read slightly harder you would have put together that rolling tobacco has about the same levels of known carcinogens as weed but manufactured cigs have more. Also where did you get this random as bad 5 lite cigarettes, that makes absolutely no sense, the man who claimed that later retracted the statement and admitted he sensationalized it. While smoking vaps is virtually harmless smoking out of a bong is about as bad as papers man so clarification is needed, also percolators are apart of some bongs, bubbler/wubblers and pipes, it ain't its own smoking device. The part where you say numbing your nerve endings or whatever, that's kinda like saying a tree can feel pain, it just isn't right. Sure a nerve ending can be desensitized but that's only with ACh receptors which have little to do with THC activity. The temporal lobe isn't where all of the short term memory functions are held, and is more important for making long term memories if I'm remembering that correctly. Now you may be thinking why am I such a dick that's going out of my way to correct you where you are wrong? Well it's because you said this: archonflux said: Because of this statement i decided to take time out of my lazy ass day and show you that in fact, you are the ignorant one and should reserve your opinion before you know the facts.So it may be worth the effort of reserving ones opinion before they know the facts, as i have read some very ignorant posts in this thread. |
| Yea, i was responding my compromise on his sensationalising of the 5 cigarette basis. I wasn't trying to be 100% factual, like you are. I've read your posts fine, thank you. And all you are doing is symanticizing my post and getting all uppity reveling in your own uselss knowledge. The only difference between our posts is that i put it in a way that people who don't know anything about the subject can understand. And you just threw a bunch of scientific terms out there which only corroborated my post. You weren't a dick for 'correcting' me if thats what you want to call it, your a dick because you failed at having proper manners, even IF you correct someone, you don't act like an asshole while you are doing it. I spoke of ignorant people, the ignorant people i was talking about are the people that are anti marijuana. So you still come off as being an ass while not adding any proper contribution to the thread. Lastly, it doesn't impress anyone that you know a lot about drugs. If it truly is your own knowledge and not a quick 20 minute research from wikipedia which i noticed you referenced earlier. Because unless you are a pharmasist this knowledge is uselsss. Maybe that's why i didn't want to get into a symantic arguement over this dumb stuff with you. Thanks for sharing the scientifc facts though, as excessive and uncalled for as it was. |
| funny you mention it i do plan on becoming a pharmacist. |
archonflux said: I spoke of ignorant people, the ignorant people i was talking about are the people that are anti marijuana.. I was avoiding this Topic, because it's too easy to get trolled. Never the less, I take exception to what you just said. You can talk about this all you like and intellectualize it as much as you want. That is what addicts do, they will go to any lengths to justify their addiction in any way they can, even if it does hurt people around them. But especially because they don't care about the fact it hurts people around them as long as they can justify doing it to themselves. They are not convincing anyone else except themselves that what they do is OK. I know people who lives it has ruined. The ''numbers'' are not important. The reality is. The fact is destroyed the life of a very good friend of mine is also irrelevant, of the people I know personally, everyone who once smoked weed in college, doesn't now. Not all of them went on to lead a successful life, some went further down into the sewer, following their addiction right into the dirtiest places of society. Some just went on to do normal things, and some ended up in hospital, in a permanent psychosis that they will never come out of. I've seen first hand the effect of this drug, I smoked a lot of weed in college and all it ever gave me was inflated ego and sense of self importance and arrogance that then I thought made me cool, intelligent and popular. Now i realize just the opposite, as I watch the younger generation make the same mistakes as I did act just as pompous and arrogant as I ever did, if not worse in the zealous nature of how they approach life in a parasitic way. The worst of all of these people was a ''friend'' who was the dealer of my town essentially. Profit at the expense of others was his only meaning. Selling weed, great, he had Lots of repeat customers, because the more they smoked the more they wanted it, the more money he made and the worse their life became. Moving up the drug ladder? yes he did that too as people kept chasing the high of being high, moving to pills, acid, then cocaine because it was smokeless and easily concealable. Oh I remember that conversation well, it went something along the lines of, '' doing coke is like smoking weed but you don't have to roll up or deal with the smell, it's way more chilled as well like after you smoked a nice fatty''. Oh yeah, it was much easier to just quickly nip to the toilets in the pub rather than go outside for a spliff, besides a spliff was now just a substitute for a cigarette, when you weren't doing coke in the pub, getting wasted drunk coming down of a harsh pill field night as the club. Smoking a spliff before bed, one in the morning of course, to ''chill'' you out for the day, because coping with life on life's terms was unacceptable now. Playing games? watching films? whats the point unless you have at least an eighth, to chill out with. An eighth a day, £140 a week easily, per person, about 20 people all begging for it day in day out, like being a crazy person who has hundreds of cats hanging outside her house because she leaves food everywhere. Always, they would turn up with some ''radical'' cool new story, about how they smoked weed last night and played PS2 all night and learned star wars on the bass guitar, and then on to the next, and the next, and the next. People went both ways, some went on to because crack heads, some went on to become estate agents. Then you meet the people who lives you ruined, hanging out in AA and NA meetings. Broken, miserable, poor. Just need a spliff because everything is OK when you smoke a spliff. It's when you're not that's the problem. Crack heads? great people when they have some crack, evil when they haven't has a hit in two days. Yeah drugs are great, they don't hurt you or harm you while your doing them, at least that's what you tell yourself. It's just your ability to function without them that's the problem. So no, Flux. YOu can intellectualize it all you want, dpjpm can help you intellectualize it all you want. Nobody is saying that people who smoke weed are not smart or intelligent, just not smart of intelligent enough to see they are addicts. That is true ignorance. |
| I'm sorry i dont have enough time to read the whole post, i will later when i have time but i don't want to create fuss over this any more than i have. I don't think i was completely clear with any of my posts, even though i tried to be. I'm not taking an intellecture angle on this discussion at all, my basis stems strictly from personal experience and basic knowledge of how a person reacts to the drug and why. In fact, it was dpjdm that was taking the intellectual angle, which i found to be quite a good read, minus a few insults here and there. One other thing that a lot of people misconcieve and use as an arguement is the false fact that it has any addictive qualities at all. Those people who spiral down into the drug universe using weed as their 'starter' drug do so not out of addiction, but by their own or other's influence resolving that weed isn't potent enough for them anymore. I have been off the weed for a little over a month now and i have not felt the need or desire to smoke some. People smoke it by their own choice and continue to by their own choice. It isn't a physical or mental addiction. I speak from my own personal experience as a user of it for years. I realize people have stories of friends that went down the road of drugs that they aren't proud of. I too have those stories of friends. In the end it is about knowing when to say no to the real life destroyers, and not the lightweight past times. I don't believe it is ignorance at all. Everyone has to choose their own way. Just a quick type out, i'll read the rest of your post later to understand completely. |
archonfluxAug 2, 2011 3:08 PM
More topics from this board
Poll: » Which of these 6 things matters most to you?IpreferEcchi - Jun 1 |
31 |
by shiroha
»»
29 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Do you think we will have Terminator-like robots or will we have Detroit Become Human-like robots in the future?Absurdo_N - 5 hours ago |
3 |
by deg
»»
3 hours ago |
|
» Favorite places in Japan(to thos who have been to Japan) and where would you like to visit in the future when you go again? ( 1 2 )KiraraFan - May 7 |
58 |
by MalchikRepaid
»»
3 hours ago |
|
» Vent thread. ( 1 2 )Spooks - Oct 7, 2013 |
90 |
by Mirania
»»
3 hours ago |
|
» Anime convention storiesPAPOrr - Apr 19, 2023 |
11 |
by MalchikRepaid
»»
4 hours ago |