DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: JustinVK on October 18, 2011, 01:12:05 PM
-
I am curious what members on the forum think, as most seem very intelligent.
-
People who smoke pot are unintelligent and lazy and contribute nothing to society.
-
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?board=8.0
-
People who smoke pot are unintelligent and lazy and contribute nothing to society.
I don't know, maybe you're being sarcastic? That is flatly untrue.
-
How can i move this to the correct section in politics?
-
People who smoke pot are unintelligent and lazy and contribute nothing to society.
I don't know, maybe you're being sarcastic? That is flatly untrue.
It is known 'round these parts that Z likes to indulge from time to time.
-
People who smoke pot are unintelligent and lazy and contribute nothing to society.
I don't know, maybe you're being sarcastic? That is flatly untrue.
Yeah that's sarcasm. He smokes like every day.
also yes it should be legalized, but I don't really care. I'll still smoke regardless.
-
I see no reason for it not to be, but it doesn't really affect me one way or the other.
-
Legalize and tax it.
-
I see no reason for it not to be, but it doesn't really affect me one way or the other.
-
Legalize and tax it.
Definitely that. Tax the shit out of it.
-
I'm interested in the four votes against! Why not?
Oh, and just so we're clear, I have no dog in the fight since I don't partake, but I agree with this post completely!
Legalize and tax it.
-
I see no reason for it not to be, but it doesn't really affect me one way or the other.
-
People who smoke pot are unintelligent and lazy and contribute nothing to society.
I don't know, maybe you're being sarcastic? That is flatly untrue.
Yeah that's sarcasm. He smokes like every day.
also yes it should be legalized, but I don't really care. I'll still smoke regardless.
Ahh, yes, ok, missed the sarcasm. I don't really indulge any more, unless the....treatment I am taking....really whacks me good, sometimes it helps with the nausea. It's not really something I've indulged in for recreational purposes in a long time, though.
Prohibition of this fairly benign substance has been a huge failure and I think it's absurd to lock up otherwise law-abiding citizens for possession. Alcohol is FAR more dangerous, imho.
-
Yes. And I also think LSD, MDMA (ecstasy) and Psilocybin (shrooms) should be legal to use for therapy in controlled conditions.
-
Yes.
-
Yes. Now. Do it. The war on drugs is just devastating on so many levels.
-
Yes. And I also think LSD, MDMA (ecstasy) and Psilocybin (shrooms) should be legal to use for therapy in controlled conditions.
It would probably be best if MDMA was legalized outright - as it stands it's so often cut with other drugs that it's much more dangerous illegal.
-
I don't smoke at all. But I personally see no problem in legalising it -> more deaths are caused by normal smoking each year and I generally don't really have a problem with it.
-
I think it is silly that it isn't legal. It is so much less harmful than alcohol on any number of levels.
Tax it, but not so much that it creates a new black market
-
It is so much less harmful than alcohol on any number of levels.
Good point. It really is.
-
I think it is silly that it isn't legal. It is so much less harmful than alcohol on any number of levels.
Tax it, but not so much that it creates a new black market
Thisthisthis. I'm also fairly sure there was a bunch of studies proving it's MUCH more healthy than cigarettes.
-
Don't commercial cigarettes have, like, fiberglass in them?
-
I think it is silly that it isn't legal. It is so much less harmful than alcohol on any number of levels.
Tax it, but not so much that it creates a new black market
Thisthisthis. I'm also fairly sure there was a bunch of studies proving it's MUCH more healthy than cigarettes.
I wouldn't use the phrase "more healthy" to describe anything related to smoking something. :lol
Let's just say "a lot less harmful." :P
-
An FYI, everyone please exercise caution, as anyone interested in mentioning personal use is probably toeing the line. Probably best to keep personal usage out of the discussion completely. Just a suggestion, take it FWIW.
That said, I think that it most definitely should NOT be illegal. The amount of police resources that would be freed up over it would likely be astonishing.
-
Smoking weed is actually worse for you than cigarettes (IIRC one joint is roughly the equivalent of 5 cigarettes), it's just irrelevant because no one smokes 20 joints a day like people do with cigarettes.
-
That said, I think that it most definitely should NOT be illegal. The amount of police resources that would be freed up over it would likely be astonishing.
Honestly I think the only problem with this is that many people would lose their jobs. The DEA would probably no longer exist except maybe for cocaine related cases.
Smoking weed is actually worse for you than cigarettes (IIRC one joint is roughly the equivalent of 5 cigarettes), it's just irrelevant because no one smokes 20 joints a day like people do with cigarettes.
Also not a lot of people smoke with joints. It's the paper that's really bad for you, so smoking out of a bowl or bong is a lot better.
-
That said, I think that it most definitely should NOT be illegal. The amount of police resources that would be freed up over it would likely be astonishing.
Honestly I think the only problem with this is that many people would lose their jobs. The DEA would probably no longer exist except maybe for cocaine related cases.
True, and while I do not wish job loss on anyone, I also can't condone jailing people over something so seemingly minor.
-
Legalize and tax it.
Don't tax it. Don't tax anything.
Still legalize it though. It'll end some of the cartel's business. But if you want to break the cartels you've gotta legalize all drugs basically.
I wouldn't be affected anywhere since I wouldn't use it.
-
The DEA has bigger fish to fry than petty marijuana users. They go after the big fish. Which, the would still be able to do if pot was legalized. The black market would still exist, and the DEA would have their hands full going after it still. So they can keep their jobs.
-
Asking not to tax it is fine. Thinking there would be any way in hell the gub'mint would keep their grubby hands off a slice of the pie is the stuff of fairy tales.
-
I'm going yes mostly because it would help fight drug dealers.
The DEA has bigger fish to fry than petty marijuana users. They go after the big fish. Which, the would still be able to do if pot was legalized. The black market would still exist, and the DEA would have their hands full going after it still. So they can keep their jobs.
This is a very good explanation.
-
interesting discussion. I agree with legalizing it and taxing it.
-
An FYI, everyone please exercise caution, as anyone interested in mentioning personal use is probably toeing the line. Probably best to keep personal usage out of the discussion completely. Just a suggestion, take it FWIW.
exactly this. thanks Coz
-
I kinda miss the good ole days where I had to be the one man, pro-drug use army. I kinda feel irrelevant in here now.
Anyhoo, decriminalization is the ticket--not legalization. Government control via legalization would be a supreme clusterfuck.
I am curious what members on the forum think, as most seem very intelligent.
And I'm curious if the VK in your nic has any significance here.
-
I've never consumed marijuana, and there's a good chance I never will, but I certainly believe it should be legal (or decriminalized).
-
I don't do any drugs, but I say legalize it.
Hell, legalize all drugs.
Sure, I don't necessarily like the thought of people being able to buy hard drugs, but it happens anyways, regardless of their legality, and I'd much rather that if people are buying these sorts of drugs, that it's coming from actual reputable companies, as opposed to cartels.
Your average corporation wouldn't be committing the typical atrocities associated with cartels, I don't think.
And as for the health issues with this, I say that if a person's willing to take the risks associated with hard drug use, let them face those consequences on their own. They're probably fully aware of their decision. I mean, yes, it's not good for people to be dying from the effects of hard drug use, but it is their decision to or not to take that path.
-
I kinda miss the good ole days where I had to be the one man, pro-drug use army. I kinda feel irrelevant in here now.
Pro use? So, you'd advocate for people to use heroin?
You probably just worded it wrong though.. hopefully
-
I voted yes, but in the end, it doesn't really make much of a difference. Americans will still continue their destructive drug abuse cycle to their early graves, legal or not.
But what irks me the most is that when Americans consume marijuana, they fail to see the true price of their silly leisurely drug consumptions; they are fueling loathsome drug mafias south of the border with endless amounts of money and weapons and are indirectly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in Mexico and elsewhere just so they can pretend to have problems and "soothe" their "difficult life" with hallucinogenic herbs. Such apathy to their direct sponsorship in crimes astounds me.
-
loathsome drug mafias south of the border with endless amounts of money and weapons and are indirectly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in Mexico and elsewhere
The exact reason you should've voted yes.
-
loathsome drug mafias south of the border with endless amounts of money and weapons and are indirectly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in Mexico and elsewhere
The exact reason you should've voted yes.
Wow. Huge eff up there. I voted yes.
-
I kinda miss the good ole days where I had to be the one man, pro-drug use army. I kinda feel irrelevant in here now.
Pro use? So, you'd advocate for people to use heroin?
You probably just worded it wrong though.. hopefully
Nope. Worded correctly. :biggrin: Do I think that everybody should rush out to do some heroin? No. But I do think that more people should be open to exploring other avenues and broadening their horizons. It's an interesting world out there, with a lot of neat things to do.
I voted no, but in the end, it doesn't really make much of a difference. Americans will still continue their destructive drug abuse cycle to their early graves, legal or not.
But what irks me the most is that when Americans consume marijuana, they fail to see the true price of their silly leisurely drug consumptions; they are fueling loathsome drug mafias south of the border with endless amounts of money and weapons and are indirectly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in Mexico and elsewhere just so they can pretend to have problems and "soothe" their "difficult life" with hallucinogenic herbs. Such apathy to their direct sponsorship in crimes astounds me.
Not apathy at all. Take it up with our rather misguided government. Personally, I'd much rather grow my own stash; cheaper, better and chemical free. Unfortunately, that would throw a damper on the war Uncle Sammy is so keen to fight. That's why the penalty for getting caught with a bag of Mexican dirt weed is a slap on the wrist, while getting busted growing in your back yard can lead to honest-to-goodness federal time. It's our government fucking the Mexicans over--not the stoners.
-
The argument I hear the most for the legalization of weed is that substance laws, as they are now, are inconsistent. This is true. Alcohol is worse than weed. I don't think anyone's going to disagree with that.
So, in order to correct inconsistency, there are two options. 1) Legalization of weed. 2) Prohibition on alcohol. Either of these would solve the inconsistency problem. I would opt for option 2, though, because I really think that there needs to be a tighter regulation on the selling of alcohol. And after we solve the alcohol problem, we can move on to the weed question. One step back before taking two steps forward.
-
Because prohibition worked so well the first time.
-
Because prohibition worked so well the first time.
:lol Well, first, times are different, and I think we've got evidence to back up resorting to prohibition. And second, more restrictions to reduce alcohol related accidents is all that's need. I'm not saying we should prohibit it altogether.
-
What kind of evidence, and what kind of restrictions?
-
also yes it should be legalized, but I don't really care. I'll still smoke regardless.
If I were a partaker in such things, I believe I'd care mostly because making it legal would make it easier to get and it would make me less paranoid about having it (or, more specifically, transporting it). Also... quality control.
-
also yes it should be legalized, but I don't really care. I'll still smoke regardless.
If I were a partaker in such things, I believe I'd care mostly because making it legal would make it easier to get and it would make me less paranoid about having it (or, more specifically, transporting it). Also... quality control.
Trust me, it's REALLY easy to get. I think one positive thing about it being legal though would be the prices would probably drop significantly.
-
What kind of evidence, and what kind of restrictions?
I dunno the answers to those questions. All I said was that I think we have enough evidence. :)
It's an issue I don't really care about to be honest. I care enough to post my half-thought-up views in a thread on an Internet forum, but not enough to actually research it out. What can I say.
-
Prohibition didn't work with alchohol, so it was lifted. About the same time as marijuana was criminalized in the US. Seriously, how could they not understand that is was the PRINCIPLE of prohibition that was ineffective?
-
yes it should be legalized, but I don't really care. I'll still smoke regardless.
-
also yes it should be legalized, but I don't really care. I'll still smoke regardless.
If I were a partaker in such things, I believe I'd care mostly because making it legal would make it easier to get and it would make me less paranoid about having it (or, more specifically, transporting it). Also... quality control.
Trust me, it's REALLY easy to get. I think one positive thing about it being legal though would be the prices would probably drop significantly.
No, I mean... it's definitely not difficult to get. I'm just saying it would be a lot nicer if I could just drop by 7-11 on my way home from work and pick up an eighth with my Big Gulp and hot dog. (And of course, the "I" in this scenario is just a purely hypothetical pot smoker).
-
I don't smoke, but if I were, I'd have no idea where to begin lol. I believe it should be legalized.
-
also yes it should be legalized, but I don't really care. I'll still smoke regardless.
If I were a partaker in such things, I believe I'd care mostly because making it legal would make it easier to get and it would make me less paranoid about having it (or, more specifically, transporting it). Also... quality control.
Trust me, it's REALLY easy to get. I think one positive thing about it being legal though would be the prices would probably drop significantly.
No, I mean... it's definitely not difficult to get. I'm just saying it would be a lot nicer if I could just drop by 7-11 on my way home from work and pick up an eighth with my Big Gulp and hot dog. (And of course, the "I" in this scenario is just a purely hypothetical pot smoker).
I don't think you understand. That's how it pretty much is at Virginia Tech. :lol
-
also yes it should be legalized, but I don't really care. I'll still smoke regardless.
If I were a partaker in such things, I believe I'd care mostly because making it legal would make it easier to get and it would make me less paranoid about having it (or, more specifically, transporting it). Also... quality control.
Trust me, it's REALLY easy to get. I think one positive thing about it being legal though would be the prices would probably drop significantly.
No, I mean... it's definitely not difficult to get. I'm just saying it would be a lot nicer if I could just drop by 7-11 on my way home from work and pick up an eighth with my Big Gulp and hot dog. (And of course, the "I" in this scenario is just a purely hypothetical pot smoker).
I don't think you understand. That's how it pretty much is at Virginia Tech. :lol
Isn't that where DTVT works?
-
I kinda miss the good ole days where I had to be the one man, pro-drug use army. I kinda feel irrelevant in here now.
Anyhoo, decriminalization is the ticket--not legalization. Government control via legalization would be a supreme clusterfuck.
I think this partly comes down to terminology... basically, to say you want to make something not illegal, you're saying make it legal. I agree with you on your argument that positive legalization could come with a bunch of bullshit regulations regarding the individual user / individual grower. Decriminalization can sometimes not go far enough, and basically just amounts to giving up on the individual user, while still concentrating on the manufacturing and commerce of the stuff (which still means a whole bunch of social problems).
-
also yes it should be legalized, but I don't really care. I'll still smoke regardless.
If I were a partaker in such things, I believe I'd care mostly because making it legal would make it easier to get and it would make me less paranoid about having it (or, more specifically, transporting it). Also... quality control.
Trust me, it's REALLY easy to get. I think one positive thing about it being legal though would be the prices would probably drop significantly.
No, I mean... it's definitely not difficult to get. I'm just saying it would be a lot nicer if I could just drop by 7-11 on my way home from work and pick up an eighth with my Big Gulp and hot dog. (And of course, the "I" in this scenario is just a purely hypothetical pot smoker).
I don't think you understand. That's how it pretty much is at Virginia Tech. :lol
Isn't that where DTVT works?
and it's also where I go to school. I thought you knew this.
Also, everyone here needs to watch the documentary The Union: The Business Behind Getting High. Fantastic documentary about the history of marijuana in the US and other related things (including why it would be beneficial to be legalized)
-
I kinda miss the good ole days where I had to be the one man, pro-drug use army. I kinda feel irrelevant in here now.
Anyhoo, decriminalization is the ticket--not legalization. Government control via legalization would be a supreme clusterfuck.
I think this partly comes down to terminology... basically, to say you want to make something not illegal, you're saying make it legal. I agree with you on your argument that positive legalization could come with a bunch of bullshit regulations regarding the individual user / individual grower. Decriminalization can sometimes not go far enough, and basically just amounts to giving up on the individual user, while still concentrating on the manufacturing and commerce of the stuff (which still means a whole bunch of social problems).
This is my point. You weren't around when we were discussing Cali's misguided attempt to legalize it. Proposition 420, or whatever they called it, was horrendous. What they have now and what they were trying to enact is essentially the difference between decriminalization and legalization.
-
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007
Everyone watch this.
-
watching it right now...doubt I will watch whole thing, but interesting so far
-
Honestly it's one of the best documentaries I've ever seen.
-
Honestly it's one of the best documentaries I've ever seen.
When I get back from a hall event, I'll finish it. I really like it so far and it figures marijuana is still illegal even though every argument the government had is just completely floored.
-
Legalize it. It's stupid that it's illegal.
-
What hefdaddy said.
But I don't agree with the arguement that "prohibition can't work" or something. It can work. It tends to work, too, when the substance in question isn't relatively harmless and something a lot of people like.
-
How can it work? It's not like there's illegal things out there that you can't get. Prohibition just makes it a little harder and raises prices.
-
What hefdaddy said.
But I don't agree with the arguement that "prohibition can't work" or something. It can work. It tends to work, too, when the substance in question isn't relatively harmless and something a lot of people like.
Are you implying weed isn't relatively harmless or did I take your wording the wrong way?
-
I believe meant that it IS relatively harmless, which is true.
-
How can it work?
Check out how Mao Zedong handled China's opium problem. That's at least one example of prohibition working.
EDIT: From Wiki:
The Mao Zedong government is generally credited with eradicating both consumption and production of opium during the 1950s using unrestrained repression and social reform. Ten million addicts were forced into compulsory treatment, dealers were executed, and opium-producing regions were planted with new crops.
So, if something's a big enough problem (weed isn't but you might be able to argue that alcohol was in the early 20th century) it can be dealt with. But you to be willing to take a hard, police-state level line on drugs, which prohibition in the 20's was not and The War on Drugs was only close to under Nixon.
And yeah, it won't eliminate the substance all together. But it will produce results, I'm sure.
-
I voted no.
Why? Unfortunately I have very personal reasons that I don't feel comfortable sharing, let alone online.
-
I'm very anti-drugs in general, and not even slightly interested in marijuana, but some arguments I've heard recently kinda pushed me to the "yes" side. Basically:
- it can be taxed, the government profits instead of criminals
- it will probably be better quality/safer
- it will lose some of the appeal (it's hard not to get the impression that for a fair amount of people it's interesting because it's "bad") and after the initial interest could actually be less popular.
This kinda convinced me about the idea. However, marijuana only because it's the least dangerous. All "harder" drugs - fight that shit as much as possible.
-
How can it work?
Check out how Mao Zedong handled China's opium problem. That's at least one example of prohibition working.
EDIT: From Wiki:
The Mao Zedong government is generally credited with eradicating both consumption and production of opium during the 1950s using unrestrained repression and social reform. Ten million addicts were forced into compulsory treatment, dealers were executed, and opium-producing regions were planted with new crops.
So, if something's a big enough problem (weed isn't but you might be able to argue that alcohol was in the early 20th century) it can be dealt with. But you to be willing to take a hard, police-state level line on drugs, which prohibition in the 20's was not and The War on Drugs was only close to under Nixon.
And yeah, it won't eliminate the substance all together. But it will produce results, I'm sure.
Like I said, it would obviously produce results. I don't think they would be very significant at all in this country, mostly because we won't be executing dealers. :lol
Prohibition has NEVER worked in this country, especially with "The War on Drugs."
-
Agreed. The only way to end drugs is to kill the dealers, and that is way too Draconian for my liking.
-
I'd say the problem is on the other side - they're just so... attractive. There are always dumb people willing to try it even if they're aware that it's extremely addictive and lethal sooner or later, and it allows to make so much money that there are always people willing to distribute them. I think that's the side which needs to be struck, the problem is how. Fighting the consequences will never be that effective, because (except cases like the China example above, when you go for absolute terror, but we're talking about a civilised government) there is no reasonable way to make them afraid enough to stop selling/buying.
-
I'd say the problem is on the other side - they're just so... attractive.
Well, there's arguable health benefits to some. I won't go into the details of weed, as psychedelics (acid, mushrooms) have been shown to be rather healthy for a person. I think it's Cornell, but it's some Ivy League school, has been doing a continuing study on the effects of mushrooms, and the effects keep getting better and better for the person. Acid, I believe, has been shown to promote neuron growth, which can be very important in older persons.
-
I'd say the problem is on the other side - they're just so... attractive. There are always dumb people willing to try it even if they're aware that it's extremely addictive and lethal sooner or later, and it allows to make so much money that there are always people willing to distribute them. I think that's the side which needs to be struck, the problem is how. Fighting the consequences will never be that effective, because (except cases like the China example above, when you go for absolute terror, but we're talking about a civilised government) there is no reasonable way to make them afraid enough to stop selling/buying.
Are you saying that marijuana is addictive and lethal? That couldn't be further from the truth.
-
I wasn't talking about marijuana, I meant all heavier drugs - I thought that's what the discussion jumped to.
I know marijuana is on the level of alcohol in terms of harm if not less.
-
I wasn't talking about marijuana, I meant all heavier drugs - I thought that's what the discussion jumped to.
I know marijuana is on the level of alcohol in terms of harm if not less.
Don't you see the hypocrisy in that though? Why is one illegal while the other is legal?
-
In terms of hard drugs, I say that if a person is to make the decision to do them, let them make that decision and face the physical, mental, social, ect. consequences on their own terms.
If a person becomes addicted and ultimately dies as a result of cocaine addiction, it's their fall, their problem.
The gov. has no reason to make it their problem, and hence, should just allow it. The benefits of replacing the cartels with actual companies as sellers (i.e. killing off the black market and the violence associated with it) would definitely ought-weigh the downside of putting people at risk of becoming addicted to hard drugs through being able to buy them legally. Besides, I bet that the majority of people who would willingly buy hard drugs buy them illegally right now.
-
I'd say the problem is on the other side - they're just so... attractive.
Well, there's arguable health benefits to some. I won't go into the details of weed, as psychedelics (acid, mushrooms) have been shown to be rather healthy for a person. I think it's Cornell, but it's some Ivy League school, has been doing a continuing study on the effects of mushrooms, and the effects keep getting better and better for the person. Acid, I believe, has been shown to promote neuron growth, which can be very important in older persons.
I'd like to add that MDMA (Ecstasy) has been successfully used in relationship counseling, among other things.
LSD also worked well in helping alcoholics overcome their addictions. Funny enough, I think it was the US government that tried to "disprove" this by tying alcoholics to beds, giving them ultra high doses of Acid and leaving them there. After that they went "see, it doesn't work"
-
I want to see marijuana legalized, but I feel like that would involve a lot of regulations favoring corporate control over the whole enterprise and restricting individual growers/consumers from doing what they please.
-
Legalize it and tax it.
It doesn't affect me, so why not. More revenue for the government and everyone wins.
-
I wasn't talking about marijuana, I meant all heavier drugs - I thought that's what the discussion jumped to.
I know marijuana is on the level of alcohol in terms of harm if not less.
Don't you see the hypocrisy in that though? Why is one illegal while the other is legal?
Meaning alcohol vs. marijuana or marijuana vs. other drugs?
If the first, I have to say I'm definitely not a fan of alcohol either (still never tried it at 19 and still not really interested; I'd also have a lot to say about it but that's another issue), but the difference is simply that everyone knows how it works. The problem I have with marijuana is that the information I've seen about it has always been either "see, this is pure evil" or "see, weed is good and harmless". I'd just like some decent, detailed, objective information about how it works and what exact risks are associated. However, I know what you mean and even though I have extreme distrust for any kind of drugs that influence the brain, I kinda also see it as an argument for.
If the second... I see a pretty strong division here, I haven't heard of anyone dying of marijuana overdose, while I don't think I have to comment on this regarding harder drugs. They're nothing else than a threat, and while the initial interest in marijuana after legalisation wouldn't probably mean much, I'm pretty certain if you legalised everything, that would mean deaths. They should be eliminated, but I think it's time to change the strategy, like I mentioned before. (Even if you didn't mean this, this is also an answer to MasterShakezula's post.)
-
If you want objective information you either need to a) try it yourself, or b)
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007
Everyone watch this.
-
If the second... I see a pretty strong division here, I haven't heard of anyone dying of marijuana overdose, while I don't think I have to comment on this regarding harder drugs. They're nothing else than a threat, and while the initial interest in marijuana after legalisation wouldn't probably mean much, I'm pretty certain if you legalised everything, that would mean deaths. They should be eliminated, but I think it's time to change the strategy, like I mentioned before. (Even if you didn't mean this, this is also an answer to MasterShakezula's post.)
Yeah, not so much. One of the main risks of death with drug usage comes from heroin, and with legality you'd see that number drop quite a bit. You'd have insured quality and potency. You'd have better access to opiate-antagonists like Naloxone, which will kick an overdose in it's ass. You'd have access to needles to prevent AIDS and Hepatitis. People would have actual, correct info on how to safely use. It goes on and on. Heroin overdoses are a result of the war on drugs and needn't happen.
As for the rest of them, the risk usually comes with prolonged usage. The Lynn Bias's of the world are few and far between. I'm not sure what effect legalization would have on, say, long term usage of coke. There's no reason for it to have a direct effect. It might cause more people to try it and eventually become addicted, but it might just as well lead to more people being able to seek treatment, given that they'll no longer be viewed as criminals or animals.
-
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007
Everyone watch this.
I watching this right now and damn it is super biased. Not one death attributed to Weed? Bullshit. Merely inhaling smoke into your lungs can cause cancer.
-
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007
Everyone watch this.
I watching this right now and damn it is super biased. Not one death attributed to Weed? Bullshit. Merely inhaling smoke into your lungs can cause cancer.
I can find the actual study if you'd like, but you're ignoring the role THC has. Both tobacco smoke and marijuana smoke cause the same initial reaction in the lungs - but THC causes a different enzymical reaction, one which neutralizes the damages and prevents cancer from forming - whereas nicotine causes a different enzymical reaction which actually makes the damage worse (the exact technical issues were beyond my knowledge, but these were the conclusions of the study). There was even one study which showed a 50% decrease in lung cancer tumor size after medical marijuana. There are other studies which have shown that, on the large scale, people who smoke weed actually have a slightly lower rate of lung cancer than the general population.
-
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007
Everyone watch this.
I watching this right now and damn it is super biased. Not one death attributed to Weed? Bullshit. Merely inhaling smoke into your lungs can cause cancer.
I can find the actual study if you'd like, but you're ignoring the role THC has. Both tobacco smoke and marijuana smoke cause the same initial reaction in the lungs - but THC causes a different enzymical reaction, one which neutralizes the damages and prevents cancer from forming - whereas nicotine causes a different enzymical reaction which actually makes the damage worse (the exact technical issues were beyond my knowledge, but these were the conclusions of the study). There was even one study which showed a 50% decrease in lung cancer tumor size after medical marijuana. There are other studies which have shown that, on the large scale, people who smoke weed actually have a slightly lower rate of lung cancer than the general population.
Of course I'm ignoring the role. It has nothing to do with what I talking about. The mere inhalation of a toxin substance can have deadly affects on the body. To say that no one has ever died from those effects is dishonest.
-
Watched the documentary. Should be legalized...but I still think any mind-altering substance should at least be subject to control.
-
yeah, agreed about some degree of control.
-
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007
Everyone watch this.
I watching this right now and damn it is super biased. Not one death attributed to Weed? Bullshit. Merely inhaling smoke into your lungs can cause cancer.
I can find the actual study if you'd like, but you're ignoring the role THC has. Both tobacco smoke and marijuana smoke cause the same initial reaction in the lungs - but THC causes a different enzymical reaction, one which neutralizes the damages and prevents cancer from forming - whereas nicotine causes a different enzymical reaction which actually makes the damage worse (the exact technical issues were beyond my knowledge, but these were the conclusions of the study). There was even one study which showed a 50% decrease in lung cancer tumor size after medical marijuana. There are other studies which have shown that, on the large scale, people who smoke weed actually have a slightly lower rate of lung cancer than the general population.
Of course I'm ignoring the role. It has nothing to do with what I talking about. The mere inhalation of a toxin substance can have deadly affects on the body. To say that no one has ever died from those effects is dishonest.
It's not a poison, the effects on the body are not poisonous; there are no THC receptors in the brain stem, it effects limited area's of the brain which are unrelated to bodily function. The problem is, you're classifying it as a "toxin" when there is no reason to classify it as such. It doesn't cause cancer's, nor any known long-term illnesses.
Watched the documentary. Should be legalized...but I still think any mind-altering substance should at least be subject to control.
What do you classify as a mind-altering substance? That can quickly become quite the blanket term.
-
It's not a poison, the effects on the body are not poisonous; there are no THC receptors in the brain stem, it effects limited area's of the brain which are unrelated to bodily function. The problem is, you're classifying it as a "toxin" when there is no reason to classify it as such. It doesn't cause cancer's, nor any known long-term illnesses.
I just said it has nothing to do with the THC; inhaling smoke is toxic. And it is bullshit that the documentary is trying to portray Weed as something that is completely harmless. I understand that deaths because of cancer, impairment and an array of other deceases that may arise from inhaling a toxic substances are much lower in Weeds case. What I am saying is that, they are being intentionally dishonest by making it out to be harmless when it is not.
-
What do you classify as a mind-altering substance? That can quickly become quite the blanket term.
I don't know. But I'm sure that any reasonable definition of a mind-altering substance would include marijuana.
-
It's not a poison, the effects on the body are not poisonous; there are no THC receptors in the brain stem, it effects limited area's of the brain which are unrelated to bodily function. The problem is, you're classifying it as a "toxin" when there is no reason to classify it as such. It doesn't cause cancer's, nor any known long-term illnesses.
I just said it has nothing to do with the THC; inhaling smoke is toxic. And it is bullshit that the documentary is trying to portray Weed as something that is completely harmless. I understand that deaths because of cancer, impairment and an array of other deceases that may arise from inhaling a toxic substances are much lower in Weeds case. What I am saying is that, they are being intentionally dishonest by making it out to be harmless when it is not.
You can't just use the term toxic however you want, in order for something to be toxic it has to be harmful or poisonous, neither of which accurately describe smoking marijuana and it's overall effect upon the user.
There is a well researched study which shows that heavy alcohol users, on average, live longer than complete tea-totalers, and that moderate drinkers live longer than anyone. There's reasons behind this, but basically, alcohol, a poison, can be a positive effect on the system when used in moderation. This isn't exactly what you would expect if all you consider is the ingestion of a toxic chemical and assume that this means bad/harmful effects.
It's not intentionally dishonest just because you don't agree with it.
-
It's not a poison, the effects on the body are not poisonous; there are no THC receptors in the brain stem, it effects limited area's of the brain which are unrelated to bodily function. The problem is, you're classifying it as a "toxin" when there is no reason to classify it as such. It doesn't cause cancer's, nor any known long-term illnesses.
I just said it has nothing to do with the THC; inhaling smoke is toxic. And it is bullshit that the documentary is trying to portray Weed as something that is completely harmless. I understand that deaths because of cancer, impairment and an array of other deceases that may arise from inhaling a toxic substances are much lower in Weeds case. What I am saying is that, they are being intentionally dishonest by making it out to be harmless when it is not.
You can't just use the term toxic however you want, in order for something to be toxic it has to be harmful or poisonous, neither of which accurately describe smoking marijuana and it's overall effect upon the user.
There is a well researched study which shows that heavy alcohol users, on average, live longer than complete tea-totalers, and that moderate drinkers live longer than anyone. There's reasons behind this, but basically, alcohol, a poison, can be a positive effect on the system when used in moderation. This isn't exactly what you would expect if all you consider is the ingestion of a toxic chemical and assume that this means bad/harmful effects.
It's not intentionally dishonest just because you don't agree with it.
So smoke inhalation isn't toxic? Wow!! All those people that died of smoke inhalation were just faking it. I really don't think you understand. You are still thinking I am talking about everything about Weed except the smoke inhalation. They are going on and on in the documentary about how there are no negative effects of good ole MJ. Hmmm perhaps mere smoke inhalation which is TOXIC to the body could be negatively impacting. I don't think there are any positive effects of inhaling smoke, at all.
-
Just to butt in here, I had a quick look on some papers (by no means exhaustive i'll admit) but research does seem to indicate that the level of tar, benzanthracenes and benzpyrenes (known carcinogens) is higher in a cannabis joint compared to a cigarette of equivilent mass, due to the way the user smokes it and the typical lack of filters in a joint compared to a cigarette, not to mention the higher combustion temperature of cannabis compared to tobacco.
-
I think it's Cornell, but it's some Ivy League school, has been doing a continuing study on the effects of mushrooms
Whoa, whoa, whoa... I spent three years at Cornell... how come I never heard about this?!?!
I so would've volunteered to be one of those test subjects... :)
-
Insofar as the carcinogenic aspect of MJ goes, keep in mind that people smoke it in joint form because it's the simplest method under the current circumstances. In a world where it was legal, you'd have innovation from the private sector to provide better delivery, and more willingness to use currently existing ones that are far healthier. It's a well known fact that burning it is the least efficient way of getting the get-highs out of marijuana. It's wasteful, it's unpleasant (to varying degrees), and it's unhealthy.
Once again, I'd suggest that the harm comes from the prohibition, not the drug itself.
-
They have E-cigarettes that basically just emit THC vapor so you wouldn't get the carcinogens associated with burning and inhaling smoke.
-
They have E-cigarettes that basically just emit THC vapor so you wouldn't get the carcinogens associated with burning and inhaling smoke.
I didn't realize they'd made that leap, but it's awesome that they did. The problem with vaporizing is that it's somewhat dangerous to have stoned people operating [often home-brewed] heating elements. E-cigs are safe and practical. This is exactly the sort of innovation I was hoping for. And as it relates to this thread, it's not something that the individual pothead can do himself. Extracting oils is a PITA, so it's really only practical if done commercially, which is exactly the sort of thing that would be happening if it were legal.
-
I've used a vaporizer back before my friend's broke. Pretty sure that is one of the least harmful ways to smoke.
Also you guys are forgetting that you can eat weed.
-
The thing that kind of discredits the pot movement when they bring up medicinal uses, the DEA offered up a THC pill to people with medical needs that would give them the benefits of MJ without the high. The patients refused to take it saying they'd rather smoke it. So basically they were telling them, I don't care about my ailments as much as I just want to get high.
But that's another story. I think it should just be legal across the board.
-
Insofar as the carcinogenic aspect of MJ goes, keep in mind that people smoke it in joint form because it's the simplest method under the current circumstances. In a world where it was legal, you'd have innovation from the private sector to provide better delivery, and more willingness to use currently existing ones that are far healthier. It's a well known fact that burning it is the least efficient way of getting the get-highs out of marijuana. It's wasteful, it's unpleasant (to varying degrees), and it's unhealthy.
You reckon? Because nicotine gum and e-cigarettes have been around for a while, and yet cigarettes are still the predominant form of nicotine delivery despite their issues.
-
The thing that kind of discredits the pot movement when they bring up medicinal uses, the DEA offered up a THC pill to people with medical needs that would give them the benefits of MJ without the high. The patients refused to take it saying they'd rather smoke it. So basically they were telling them, I don't care about my ailments as much as I just want to get high.
But that's another story. I think it should just be legal across the board.
The only THC pill I'm aware of is Marinol, and that will get you high as all fuck. In fact, some consider it a little too much. People who smoke dope smoke to so the point of getting as high as they want to be. Taking a pill of a fixed dosage isn't really conducive to that. Marinol is also ridiculously expensive, especially as a replacement for something you could grow on your patio for free.
Insofar as the carcinogenic aspect of MJ goes, keep in mind that people smoke it in joint form because it's the simplest method under the current circumstances. In a world where it was legal, you'd have innovation from the private sector to provide better delivery, and more willingness to use currently existing ones that are far healthier. It's a well known fact that burning it is the least efficient way of getting the get-highs out of marijuana. It's wasteful, it's unpleasant (to varying degrees), and it's unhealthy.
You reckon? Because nicotine gum and e-cigarettes have been around for a while, and yet cigarettes are still the predominant form of nicotine delivery despite their issues.
A lot of people who smoke do so because of the habit of smoking cigarettes. There's a Mexican woman currently sitting 20' away in the break room that lights up a smoke every 20 minutes, takes one drag, and then lets it burn away in the ashtray. Nicotine gum is great if your interest is in the nicotine, but it doesn't help if you have to have a burning smoke next to you all the time.
As it relates to grass, there's a certain social aspect to passing a joint around, and that's not going to be replaced with e-cigs or brownies. That said, people who smoke around the house tend to prefer a pipe or a bong to rolling a joint. That would likely be replaced if convenient vaporizing became an option.
-
I don't know the name of the pill that was offered. I do believe it was a pill that the DEA created themselves. It's probably not on the market or anything like that.
-
Pipes/Bongs are pretty much non existant in the UK. Joints are pretty much the standard here, so I think theres a cultural difference there.
-
definitely relevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lg5I4ILM44&feature=feedu
-
definitely relevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lg5I4ILM44&feature=feedu
It's a gateway drug. :biggrin:
They might as well legalize it. By the time my generation is in office, it will be legalized.
I'd prefer they just legalize research on it for the medical benefits. Look at cigarettes and alcohol. If they could ban that, you KNOW they would. If weed is already banned, why fuck with fire?
Same thing that Jefferson said about slavery. "(about slavery) We have the wolf grabbed by the ears and dare not let go".
-
Just to butt in here, I had a quick look on some papers (by no means exhaustive i'll admit) but research does seem to indicate that the level of tar, benzanthracenes and benzpyrenes (known carcinogens) is higher in a cannabis joint compared to a cigarette of equivilent mass, due to the way the user smokes it and the typical lack of filters in a joint compared to a cigarette, not to mention the higher combustion temperature of cannabis compared to tobacco.
People don't smoke nearly as much weed as they do tobacco, though. There many be more tar, but I know very few people who would be able to make it through a day of smoking a pack of joints. They'd pass the fuck out, and be way higher than they ever wanted to be. A lot of people I know take 1-2 hits, then they're done. How does thta compare to cigarettes?
Besides, if what you say is true, why then is lung cancer not a problem for marijuana? Why do people who smoke marijuana not only not get lung cancer, but why do people who start using it see an actual decrease in their tumor size? You point to a carcinogen, but then you completely fail to acknowledge the fact that that carcinogen doesn't actually cause cancer in people who smoke, and in fact, we see quite the opposite effect.
So smoke inhalation isn't toxic? Wow!! All those people that died of smoke inhalation were just faking it. I really don't think you understand. You are still thinking I am talking about everything about Weed except the smoke inhalation. They are going on and on in the documentary about how there are no negative effects of good ole MJ. Hmmm perhaps mere smoke inhalation which is TOXIC to the body could be negatively impacting. I don't think there are any positive effects of inhaling smoke, at all.
Okay, since you insist on ignoring the logic I'm giving you, I'm gonna go a head and guess that this isn't going anywhere. You're not even trying to address it, just restating your old position, whilst ignoring every single counter argument. Look up toxic in the dictionary, it is not harmful. If i go eat a gallon of ice cream, that's harmful to my system. Does that make it toxic? If I go drink a shitton of water, I could die from water poisoning. Does that make water toxic? Someone would have to smoke an ungodly amount, literally probably impossible without someone forcing you to inhale the smoke, for us to start talking about the harmful effects of smoking marijuana. It is not a problem for the common user, it is not TOXIC for the user (toxic: containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation)
You're losing the forest for the tree, and while the tree may be dead and dying, the forest is not.
-
Just to butt in here, I had a quick look on some papers (by no means exhaustive i'll admit) but research does seem to indicate that the level of tar, benzanthracenes and benzpyrenes (known carcinogens) is higher in a cannabis joint compared to a cigarette of equivilent mass, due to the way the user smokes it and the typical lack of filters in a joint compared to a cigarette, not to mention the higher combustion temperature of cannabis compared to tobacco.
People don't smoke nearly as much weed as they do tobacco, though. There many be more tar, but I know very few people who would be able to make it through a day of smoking a pack of joints. They'd pass the fuck out, and be way higher than they ever wanted to be. A lot of people I know take 1-2 hits, then they're done. How does thta compare to cigarettes?
Besides, if what you say is true, why then is lung cancer not a problem for marijuana? Why do people who smoke marijuana not only not get lung cancer, but why do people who start using it see an actual decrease in their tumor size? You point to a carcinogen, but then you completely fail to acknowledge the fact that that carcinogen doesn't actually cause cancer in people who smoke, and in fact, we see quite the opposite effect.
So smoke inhalation isn't toxic? Wow!! All those people that died of smoke inhalation were just faking it. I really don't think you understand. You are still thinking I am talking about everything about Weed except the smoke inhalation. They are going on and on in the documentary about how there are no negative effects of good ole MJ. Hmmm perhaps mere smoke inhalation which is TOXIC to the body could be negatively impacting. I don't think there are any positive effects of inhaling smoke, at all.
Okay, since you insist on ignoring the logic I'm giving you, I'm gonna go a head and guess that this isn't going anywhere. You're not even trying to address it, just restating your old position, whilst ignoring every single counter argument. Look up toxic in the dictionary, it is not harmful. If i go eat a gallon of ice cream, that's harmful to my system. Does that make it toxic? If I go drink a shitton of water, I could die from water poisoning. Does that make water toxic? Someone would have to smoke an ungodly amount, literally probably impossible without someone forcing you to inhale the smoke, for us to start talking about the harmful effects of smoking marijuana. It is not a problem for the common user, it is not TOXIC for the user (toxic: containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation)
You're losing the forest for the tree, and while the tree may be dead and dying, the forest is not.
Also, more people smoke a bowl rather than a joint.
-
If the second... I see a pretty strong division here, I haven't heard of anyone dying of marijuana overdose, while I don't think I have to comment on this regarding harder drugs. They're nothing else than a threat, and while the initial interest in marijuana after legalisation wouldn't probably mean much, I'm pretty certain if you legalised everything, that would mean deaths. They should be eliminated, but I think it's time to change the strategy, like I mentioned before. (Even if you didn't mean this, this is also an answer to MasterShakezula's post.)
Yeah, not so much. One of the main risks of death with drug usage comes from heroin, and with legality you'd see that number drop quite a bit. You'd have insured quality and potency. You'd have better access to opiate-antagonists like Naloxone, which will kick an overdose in it's ass. You'd have access to needles to prevent AIDS and Hepatitis. People would have actual, correct info on how to safely use. It goes on and on. Heroin overdoses are a result of the war on drugs and needn't happen.
As for the rest of them, the risk usually comes with prolonged usage. The Lynn Bias's of the world are few and far between. I'm not sure what effect legalization would have on, say, long term usage of coke. There's no reason for it to have a direct effect. It might cause more people to try it and eventually become addicted, but it might just as well lead to more people being able to seek treatment, given that they'll no longer be viewed as criminals or animals.
While what you say is possible after a longer period of time, I'm pretty sure the direct, short term effect would be overdoses. Unfortunately a lot of people think in a too simple way and I don't think the approach of "legal = it's safe!" would be that uncommon. If it's not that hard to find people who get sucked into trying heroine while it is strictly illegal and known to be extremely dangerous, I don't think legalisation would mean they suddenly get enlightened and start being careful about trying something.
Also, as for long-term usage... The first thing that came to my mind is: it's now "cool" to drink a lot of alcohol, on the borderline of safety, because that makes you "hardcore" or whatever. I think you see what I'm getting at?
And simply, the bottom line is, I don't see why we need them legalised in any way. There are enough social problems as it is with alcohol; maybe marijuana is an acceptable option. But I don't see any positive sides of hard drugs being more easily accessible, but definitely a ton of negative ones.
-
No one said anything about making illegal drugs more accessible. Legal does not necessarily mean more accessible. I don't think people are just going to start doing heroin if its made legal. I guarantee you that there are no people out there that would try heroin just because its legal. People who don't do heroin don't do it because its fucking dangerous and terrible for you. The people that do heroin, fall into it due to circumstances in their life.
-
Also, as for long-term usage... The first thing that came to my mind is: it's now "cool" to drink a lot of alcohol, on the borderline of safety, because that makes you "hardcore" or whatever. I think you see what I'm getting at?
If you're in a group of people, now, who think heroin use is "cool," chances are you going to do some heroin.
-
No one said anything about making illegal drugs more accessible. Legal does not necessarily mean more accessible. I don't think people are just going to start doing heroin if its made legal. I guarantee you that there are no people out there that would try heroin just because its legal. People who don't do heroin don't do it because its fucking dangerous and terrible for you. The people that do heroin, fall into it due to circumstances in their life.
I'm not so sure about that. I wish people were more responsible, but I think we have more than enough evidence that they're not. Generally the simple idea is "legal = safe (at least to a certain extent)", and well, heroin is not safe in any way possible, therefore... why should it ever be legal?
Also, as for long-term usage... The first thing that came to my mind is: it's now "cool" to drink a lot of alcohol, on the borderline of safety, because that makes you "hardcore" or whatever. I think you see what I'm getting at?
If you're in a group of people, now, who think heroin use is "cool," chances are you going to do some heroin.
I'm not sure how it looks elsewhere because I know here it may look different, but I know that it's not so uncommon here to think that someone who drinks far more than it is rational at a party is "cool". In fact, being drunk is cool in general. I find it fairly obvious the attitude could be basically the same for drugs sooner or later.
And yes, what you mention is another very likely issue.
-
The people who think heroin is cool, will do heroin. Regardless of legality. Their minds would not be changed if it was made legal. Do you really think that people would just flock to doing heroin if it was legal? That's kind of an absurd notion.
Alcohol is MUCH different than heroin and really shouldn't even be compared to each other. The kids who like to get wasted and have a good time, are not the same kids that are going to shoot up heroin.
-
Sorry, but believing that there aren't any people who are stopped only by it being strictly illegal and associated to organised crime is also kind of absurd. There are people who like things that are illegal, there are those who don't care either way, and there are those who are capable of trying a lot as long as it is legal.
I was talking about drugs in general in that case, not just heroin.
-
So who cares? People are going to do what they are going to do. Why make it illegal and have them arrested for buying? At least decriminalize. Make it legal to buy but illegal to sell. Why tie up the prison system with users? If there is a type of person out there that would do heroin once it becomes legal, then they already have horrible self control and are basically on that path anyway. If they can't realize how different heroin is than other drugs.
I'd rather see safe heroin sold or administered to users while the proceeds go to some kind of program to help them get over their addictions, than to see no support for users out there at all.
Education and support can help their situation. Or anyone's situation for that matter.
I don't think my points are absurd in any way. I think the people who choose not to do heroin has nothing to do with legality and everything to do with how they take care of themselves.
-
Well, those who buy basically keep the "business" running. Arresting for possession isn't always the best idea, but what other way do you deter them from buying? Play advertisements saying "drugs are bad"? I don't think it would be particularly effective. Also, while there obviously is a group of people that take drugs because of life problems, there definitely are also those, and I'm pretty certain they're the majority, who are doing that absolutely from their own free will. Providing money for organised crime is a good enough reason to be arrested, I think. (Again, we're not only talking about heroin.)
I definitely agree there should be better education and understanding, though. However, I think this is entirely separate from legalisation, drug addicts won't be treated better just because they've become legal.
-
Yes they will be treated better because at least they won't be seen as criminals. They will then be seen as people with a problem that need help. That's what addicts are. They are people with a problem who need help. That's what we see alcoholics as. But for some reason we see heroin addicts as just a criminal? How does that even make sense. It's just different choice of poison at that point.
-
I don't think they will because the general view on drugs is rooted pretty deep in the society and if the attitude towards drug addicts will ever change to similar one like with alcoholics, it will take a lot of time.
What should be changed is the simple understanding: if they ask for help, they're no longer criminals.
-
You have an incredibly naive, unrealistic, and inexperienced view of drug use I'm sorry to say because I don't mean to e inflame.
Honestly, what is wrong with someone who chooses to do some LSD on a Saturday afternoon in their apartment? Who are they hurting? No one. You can say they are hurting themselves, but then at that point should we also ban Big Macs?
Then when it comes to an addictive dangerous substance like heroin or meth, you have people that are taking this because of poor life decisions or have had circumstances that lead them down that path. The use of the drug itself does not make them a criminal (only by strict definition of the law). People aren't doing these types of drugs casually to have a good time. It just doesn't happen.
-
Honestly, what is wrong with someone who chooses to do some LSD on a Saturday afternoon in their apartment? Who are they hurting? No one. You can say they are hurting themselves, but then at that point should we also ban Big Macs?
are you not counting their children?
my wife grew up in a home full of LSD and hard drugs. she was molested multiple times and her brother is in prison and his kids are all on welfare and most of them have lived half their lives with my wife and I since their mom doesn't want to care for them.
are you not counting the children to be born?
my birth father used LSD while I was conceived. I didn't find this out till after I lived my life as an addict.
are you not counting the fact that I am going to have to pay for the effects of his drug use on his health in taxes?
are you not counting the other drugs like heroin which often result in addiction and the thefts of other peoples stuff to continue their habit?
I just had my car broken into by meth addicts. they were lucky to get $5 for my stereo, but $5 of meth is $5 of meth.
are you not counting the spiraling down of their lives which results in their uselessness to society.
I don't find much room to say that use of hard narcotics is harmless.
-
LSD is absolutely NOT and addictive drug in ANY way whatsoever.
LSD is not considered addictive by the medical community.[12] Rapid tolerance build-up prevents regular use, and there is cross-tolerance shown between LSD, mescaline[13] and psilocybin.[14] This tolerance diminishes after a few days without use and is probably caused by downregulation of 5-HT2A receptors in the brain.[citation needed]
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
-
LSD is absolutely NOT and addictive drug in ANY way whatsoever.
I agree. My reference to addiction was to heroin and other hard drugs (meth, etc).
I also forgot to add driving. I remember a number of times where I drove on LSD and PCP. how in the world I am still alive (let alone the drivers around me) is beyond me
-
Well it seems to me that there's a very large difference between drugs that are relatively harmless and drugs that are very harmless. The very addictive ones such as herion, cocaine, and methamphetamines should absolutely remain illegal imo, while others such as weed, LSD, mushrooms, etc. that are harmless in moderation should be legalized. I see no reason why the government should prevent a person from using them who wants to.
-
Also, I think it is common sense that using these drugs while also having a family or being pregnant is bad. But so is abusing alcohol. So I guess alcohol should also be illegal because some people might become alcoholics while they have a family? I don't understand this reasoning. As far as I know, people don't get arrested for drinking alcohol while pregnant.
At some point, people need to be personally responsible for themselves. I don't see how criminalizing all users is going to make society better. Arrest them when they commit a crime and have that be a harsh punishment, not a slap on the wrist. Basically, leave the responsible people alone, and punish the irresponsible ones.
Also, there should be better support for addicts who need help. I am in full support of setting up better systems for addicts that are caught using. When it comes to Heroin and Meth, if caught doing it you should be forced to go to a rehab center instead of a jail.
-
Also, there should be better support for addicts who need help. I am in full support of setting up better systems for addicts that are caught using. When it comes to Heroin and Meth, if caught doing it you should be forced to go to a rehab center instead of a jail.
Agreed. There should be a stronger support system for all addicts. Addicition is the only disease that you get punished for having. You are shunned by society, and deemed "weak", "unfit" and "worthless". Most people don't truly understand the power that it holds over the one suffering. It is a physical, psychological, and spiritual pit that does nothing but feed onto itself, and a recovering addict must be on a contant vigilance for the rest of their lives to stay sober.
My name is lonestar, and I'm an alcoholic/addict
-
Damn, after the last hour's worth of posts, I'm not sure who I'm arguing with anymore. So, I'm just going throw out a couple of things.
I wouldn't automatically assume legal means safe; that would be foolish. I'm also not rushing out to do some heroin only because it's illegal. Those two things accepted, if I new that I could do good heroin, of a known dosage and potency, in a clean, safe environment, I might well be interested in doing so.
With regards to coolness, I was one of those people that found it cooler to be the person who didn't jump on bandwagons. I was the only one of my peers in HS that didn't smoke cigarettes, and that was actually a lot cooler than smoking because everybody else was, particularly since I was certainly doing all manner of other naughty things.
As for Yesh's family situation, as is so often said in drug arguments, correlation does not equal causation. You yourself have done plenty of acid, and it presumably didn't make you molest or abandon kids. It seems to me that people in your family made some terrible life decisions, and it's just as reasonable to assume that doing drugs at inopportune times was the result of poor decision making rather than the cause of it. (and I drove quite well on Acid, BTW)
And out of curiosity, are you suggesting that your Old Man tripping [presumably] when you were conceived actually had any impact on your life?
-
Okay, since you insist on ignoring the logic I'm giving you, I'm gonna go a head and guess that this isn't going anywhere. You're not even trying to address it, just restating your old position, whilst ignoring every single counter argument. Look up toxic in the dictionary, it is not harmful. If i go eat a gallon of ice cream, that's harmful to my system. Does that make it toxic? If I go drink a shitton of water, I could die from water poisoning. Does that make water toxic? Someone would have to smoke an ungodly amount, literally probably impossible without someone forcing you to inhale the smoke, for us to start talking about the harmful effects of smoking marijuana. It is not a problem for the common user, it is not TOXIC for the user (toxic: containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation)
You're losing the forest for the tree, and while the tree may be dead and dying, the forest is not.
Because your counter argue doesn't matter when it come right down to just inhaling smoke. Inhaling smoke has no benefit, the THC may. If I were to go to my back yard a grab some regular grass and twigs and smoke it, there would be no benefit to inhaling that smoke, only damage to my lungs. Just like there is damage every time someone smokes a joint, cigarette, cigar or a turd. The documentary is trying to preach no ill effects, but there are. I'm not really sure what you don't understand.
-
Also, I think it is common sense that using these drugs while also having a family or being pregnant is bad. But so is abusing alcohol. So I guess alcohol should also be illegal because some people might become alcoholics while they have a family? I don't understand this reasoning. As far as I know, people don't get arrested for drinking alcohol while pregnant.
At some point, people need to be personally responsible for themselves. I don't see how criminalizing all users is going to make society better. Arrest them when they commit a crime and have that be a harsh punishment, not a slap on the wrist. Basically, leave the responsible people alone, and punish the irresponsible ones.
Also, there should be better support for addicts who need help. I am in full support of setting up better systems for addicts that are caught using. When it comes to Heroin and Meth, if caught doing it you should be forced to go to a rehab center instead of a jail.
I agree with you on everything you said.
and in regard to comparison of alcohol and its harmful effects, I agree. I am not necessarily arguing that drugs should continue to be illegal. I am only highlighting the statement that using LSD (or extend it to other hard drugs) is harmless to any one other than the user.
-
Right but, say I'm a single male. If I do LSD one afternoon, my life isn't going to go spiraling outta control.
-
As for Yesh's family situation, as is so often said in drug arguments, correlation does not equal causation. You yourself have done plenty of acid, and it presumably didn't make you molest or abandon kids. It seems to me that people in your family made some terrible life decisions, and it's just as reasonable to assume that doing drugs at inopportune times was the result of poor decision making rather than the cause of it. (and I drove quite well on Acid, BTW)
And out of curiosity, are you suggesting that your Old Man tripping [presumably] when you were conceived actually had any impact on your life?
in regard to your first point, I don't think I disagree. I am not necessarily trying to argue that LSD leads one to molest, etc. I will argue that drugs affect our judgment (long term and short term). Other than you driving well on Acid (I thought I was flying a plane the last time I did), without being intoxicated I would've never gotten into a car in that condition.
As for your second question, I only know he used LSD at the time because he admitted it on the adoption papers :lol and I assumed he used other narcotics as well. I was told in the rehab that parents who used during conception cause their children to potentially have similar addictions. not sure of the legitimacy of that claim, though. but it makes sense, as in a "coke-baby," etc.
-
Right but, say I'm a single male. If I do LSD one afternoon, my life isn't going to go spiraling outta control.
That's. How. It. Starts.
-
Right but, say I'm a single male. If I do LSD one afternoon, my life isn't going to go spiraling outta control.
That's. How. It. Starts.
Wrong. That's one way it could possibly start. However, I know myself and I know that if I ever tried LSD one time, my life would not lose control. I also know some LSD users who have perfectly functional lives and families 15 years after using it all the time.
Blanket statements are pretty useless. It just sounds like anti-drug paranoia instead of common sense and reasoning.
Personal responsibility. That is the key phrase here.
For some people it all starts with alcohol. So let's make it illegal by your logic.
-
Right but, say I'm a single male. If I do LSD one afternoon, my life isn't going to go spiraling outta control.
That's. How. It. Starts.
Wrong. That's one way it could possibly start. However, I know myself and I know that if I ever tried LSD one time, my life would not lose control. I also know some LSD users who have perfectly functional lives and families 15 years after using it all the time.
Blanket statements are pretty useless. It just sounds like anti-drug paranoia instead of common sense and reasoning.
Personal responsibility. That is the key phrase here.
For some people it all starts with alcohol. So let's make it illegal by your logic.
I understand your point about blanket statements. Now, does bringing up exceptions to the rule make those statements void? You know, millions of people drink alcohol without any problems. So, if I drink a beer one afternoon I'm just going to get smashed and drive off into the sunset and wrap my car around a tree?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition <---That's why we can't make alcohol illegal.
-
You have an incredibly naive, unrealistic, and inexperienced view of drug use I'm sorry to say because I don't mean to e inflame.
Honestly, what is wrong with someone who chooses to do some LSD on a Saturday afternoon in their apartment? Who are they hurting? No one. You can say they are hurting themselves, but then at that point should we also ban Big Macs?
Then when it comes to an addictive dangerous substance like heroin or meth, you have people that are taking this because of poor life decisions or have had circumstances that lead them down that path. The use of the drug itself does not make them a criminal (only by strict definition of the law). People aren't doing these types of drugs casually to have a good time. It just doesn't happen.
I prefer to be naive and unrealistic rather than ridiculously pragmatic, sorry.
You are trying to find differences which are impossible to clearly define. I don't see how exactly can you define it in law that this use is right and this one is wrong, or how do you prove it. It leads to either legalise everything or keep it as it is, and do you honestly believe legalising all drugs is a good idea? For me that's just a slightly less terrible idea than allowing to sell grenades in supermarket. There are people who are responsible, and there are lots of people who have no idea what responsibility means. I just think we should at least keep this minimum of not giving them access to things they don't understand. Does that explain it?
-
Right but, say I'm a single male. If I do LSD one afternoon, my life isn't going to go spiraling outta control.
That's. How. It. Starts.
Wrong. That's one way it could possibly start. However, I know myself and I know that if I ever tried LSD one time, my life would not lose control. I also know some LSD users who have perfectly functional lives and families 15 years after using it all the time.
Blanket statements are pretty useless. It just sounds like anti-drug paranoia instead of common sense and reasoning.
Personal responsibility. That is the key phrase here.
For some people it all starts with alcohol. So let's make it illegal by your logic.
I understand your point about blanket statements. Now, does bringing up exceptions to the rule make those statements void? You know, millions of people drink alcohol without any problems. So, if I drink a beer one afternoon I'm just going to get smashed and drive off into the sunset and wrap my car around a tree?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition <---That's why we can't make alcohol illegal.
How can you not see the similarities between this and other drugs? I could say the exact same thing about weed.
-
I hate that implication that people are unable to see the similarities or differences.
-
Right but, say I'm a single male. If I do LSD one afternoon, my life isn't going to go spiraling outta control.
That's. How. It. Starts.
Wrong. That's one way it could possibly start. However, I know myself and I know that if I ever tried LSD one time, my life would not lose control. I also know some LSD users who have perfectly functional lives and families 15 years after using it all the time.
Blanket statements are pretty useless. It just sounds like anti-drug paranoia instead of common sense and reasoning.
Personal responsibility. That is the key phrase here.
For some people it all starts with alcohol. So let's make it illegal by your logic.
I understand your point about blanket statements. Now, does bringing up exceptions to the rule make those statements void? You know, millions of people drink alcohol without any problems. So, if I drink a beer one afternoon I'm just going to get smashed and drive off into the sunset and wrap my car around a tree?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition <---That's why we can't make alcohol illegal.
Yeah I have really no idea what you are trying to prove to me here. This is really confusing.
So if I do LSD one night I'm going to go on a rampage and kill people, put babies in ovens, have unprotected sex and get someone pregnant, and then join a cult?
See I can do that with anything.
-
You have an incredibly naive, unrealistic, and inexperienced view of drug use I'm sorry to say because I don't mean to e inflame.
Honestly, what is wrong with someone who chooses to do some LSD on a Saturday afternoon in their apartment? Who are they hurting? No one. You can say they are hurting themselves, but then at that point should we also ban Big Macs?
Then when it comes to an addictive dangerous substance like heroin or meth, you have people that are taking this because of poor life decisions or have had circumstances that lead them down that path. The use of the drug itself does not make them a criminal (only by strict definition of the law). People aren't doing these types of drugs casually to have a good time. It just doesn't happen.
I prefer to be naive and unrealistic rather than ridiculously pragmatic, sorry.
You are trying to find differences which are impossible to clearly define. I don't see how exactly can you define it in law that this use is right and this one is wrong, or how do you prove it. It leads to either legalise everything or keep it as it is, and do you honestly believe legalising all drugs is a good idea? For me that's just a slightly less terrible idea than allowing to sell grenades in supermarket. There are people who are responsible, and there are lots of people who have no idea what responsibility means. I just think we should at least keep this minimum of not giving them access to things they don't understand. Does that explain it?
Do I want all drugs to be legal.. no. I would like to see them decriminalized, however.
I think drugs such as LSD, Shrooms, Ecstasy, Weed, Cocaine etc etc should be 100% legal.
I think stuff like Heroin and Meth should be decriminalized. I think there should be severe punishment for the creation/selling of these products. I think the people who use these products should not be put in jail, but rather forced to spend time in rehab until they are deemed fit to return to society.
Not sure where I stand on Steroids. And I'm pretty sure PCP should be banned outright but not 100% sure on that.
-
I hate that implication that people are unable to see the similarities or differences.
Well can you? I honestly don't know at this point.
-
At any rate, while I agree that weed ought to be legalized sometime, it really isn't a big issue, no matter how big people make it out to be. We have much larger foreign policy issues to deal with, that the marijuana debate is simply unimportant. It would be retarded if a politician's stance on marijuana legalization swayed a voter, in either direction.
-
If its not a big deal, why not just make it legal and get it over with.
-
If its not a big deal, why put up such a fight to get it legalized?
-
I never said it wasn't a big deal. You did.
-
Smoking weed is actually worse for you than cigarettes (IIRC one joint is roughly the equivalent of 5 cigarettes), it's just irrelevant because no one smokes 20 joints a day like people do with cigarettes.
From what? The smoke?
Because other ways of ingesting it (by eating) get you high and you don't have to deal with the smoke.
-
At any rate, while I agree that weed ought to be legalized sometime, it really isn't a big issue, no matter how big people make it out to be. We have much larger foreign policy issues to deal with, that the marijuana debate is simply unimportant. It would be retarded if a politician's stance on marijuana legalization swayed a voter, in either direction.
What about the increased prison populations for nonviolent drug offenses that cost us money as taxpayers? Also, it is putting people who have done nothing wrong in prison.
-
Hayden, it is an prett big deal actually. Mostly because of this so-called "War on Drugs" that's costing us billions of dollars.
-
Hayden, it is an prett big deal actually. Mostly because of this so-called "War on Drugs" that's costing us billions of dollars.
For weed in particular? I haven't personally experienced or seen any active govt role in fighting weed.
-
Did you watch the entire documentary? There was a whole section on it...
-
No I didn't watch all of it.
-
Hayden, it is an prett big deal actually. Mostly because of this so-called "War on Drugs" that's costing us billions of dollars.
For weed in particular? I haven't personally experienced or seen any active govt role in fighting weed.
I think that there are ~150,000 people in federal prison on charges of possession or distribution of marijuana.
-
Do I want all drugs to be legal.. no. I would like to see them decriminalized, however.
I think drugs such as LSD, Shrooms, Ecstasy, Weed, Cocaine etc etc should be 100% legal.
I think stuff like Heroin and Meth should be decriminalized. I think there should be severe punishment for the creation/selling of these products. I think the people who use these products should not be put in jail, but rather forced to spend time in rehab until they are deemed fit to return to society.
Not sure where I stand on Steroids. And I'm pretty sure PCP should be banned outright but not 100% sure on that.
I agree with your sentiment, I would love nothing more than to see the really dangerous drugs removed from society, but I don't agree with your conclusion. We have to look at the situation from a broader perspective to see what is really going on with the War on Drugs. There are really two sides of the War on Drugs. On one hand we have the gangs/cartel's, violence in the streets and millions of people locked in prison. On the other hand we have millions of people addicted to a destructive chemical and harming themselves and possibly others around them. They are two different problems and need to be addressed differently.
We already know from history that Prohibition does not work. Any attempt to ban something will inevitably lead to a black market. If the ban is enforced with violence, the black market will respond in kind and escalate the situation. This is how the mafia gained power in the early 20th century, through the production and distribution of alcohol during prohibition. Once alcohol was legalized, the mafia faded and violence in the street declined. Sure there is still alcohol abuse among society, but atleast the violence was diffused. Now we have a very peaceful market in the production and distribution of alcohol. We don't see Annheuser Busch and Coors shooting it out in the streets over turf wars. The same is true with all other drugs. Legalize them, ALL of them, and the violence will disappear, virtually over night (Mexico would thank us). The gang's and cartel's go out of business, the prison's empty by releasing non-violent criminals and we save billions of dollars.
If we legalize everything, now we can focus on the real issue. Substance abuse. Instead of spending money on fighting and imprisoning people, we can instead focus on education and rehabilitation. Yes, drugs like Heroine, Meth and PCP are dangerous, but by banning them outright, the violence will continue to escalate and the problem will never go away.
-
Yeah that's actually a really great idea. I do agree with you 100% on that actually.
-
At any rate, while I agree that weed ought to be legalized sometime, it really isn't a big issue, no matter how big people make it out to be. We have much larger foreign policy issues to deal with, that the marijuana debate is simply unimportant. It would be retarded if a politician's stance on marijuana legalization swayed a voter, in either direction.
To add to what other people are saying, the War on Drugs is really starting to escalate to War like behavior on the Mexico/US boarder. While not the most important fish to fry, it is rather important, and something that could very easily be done.
-
Yeah that's actually a really great idea. I do agree with you 100% on that actually.
I'm glad to help. It's not common I convince someone of an argument on the Internet :biggrin:
-
Yeah that's actually a really great idea. I do agree with you 100% on that actually.
I'm glad to help. It's not common I convince someone of an argument on the Internet :biggrin:
Well I think we were pretty much on the same page to begin with in how we view the issue. The war on drugs is definitely a huge waste and a big problem and I would be happy to have that money go to education and help for people on drugs or thinking of doing drugs. Also, getting rid of the black market for them would be a great thing.
-
The thing that kind of discredits the pot movement when they bring up medicinal uses, the DEA offered up a THC pill to people with medical needs that would give them the benefits of MJ without the high. The patients refused to take it saying they'd rather smoke it. So basically they were telling them, I don't care about my ailments as much as I just want to get high.
That's categorically false.
1) A THC pill will absolutely get you high. It's the main chemical in pot that gets one high.
2) The THC pill you're referring to is dronabinol (sold under the brand name Marinol). It's manufactured by a pharmaceutical company and not the DEA. In fact, the DEA doesn't manufacture pharmaceuticals at all.
3) It's too simplistic to say that choosing marijuana over the prescription drug are choosing that only to get high. There are many reasons the plant/leaves themselves can be preferable to the pill that don't involve the person wanting to get high.
-
Guys. I think I found the answer to all of our disagreements here.
(https://i.imgur.com/Xru4T.png)
-
The thing that kind of discredits the pot movement when they bring up medicinal uses, the DEA offered up a THC pill to people with medical needs that would give them the benefits of MJ without the high. The patients refused to take it saying they'd rather smoke it. So basically they were telling them, I don't care about my ailments as much as I just want to get high.
That's categorically false.
1) A THC pill will absolutely get you high. It's the main chemical in pot that gets one high.
2) The THC pill you're referring to is dronabinol (sold under the brand name Marinol). It's manufactured by a pharmaceutical company and not the DEA. In fact, the DEA doesn't manufacture pharmaceuticals at all.
3) It's too simplistic to say that choosing marijuana over the prescription drug are choosing that only to get high. There are many reasons the plant/leaves themselves can be preferable to the pill that don't involve the person wanting to get high.
Perhaps the DEA did not make this drug I'm talking about. However, my information is coming from a conversation I had with a chemist from the DEA. I was told there was a THC pill that would not give you the effects of being high.
-
THC is the actual component that gets you high. It's also [I believe] not one of the medicinally useful Cannabinoids. If you made a pill that didn't get you stoned, it wouldn't be THC and it wouldn't have any actual value.
What I could see is making a pill with some of the other Cannabinoids, which might actually be useful. There are something like 300 of them, many of which seem to offer medicinal benefits. It seems like it might be more feasible to make a strain of marijuana that just lacks THC but still has all of the other compounds in it which would still offer the medicinal benefits.
-
Perhaps the DEA did not make this drug I'm talking about. However, my information is coming from a conversation I had with a chemist from the DEA. I was told there was a THC pill that would not give you the effects of being high.
Let me put it to you this way:
If it doesn't get you high, it's not THC. Your chemist friend had to have been talking about a totally unrelated drug that had from his estimation almost all effects of THC without the euphoric effects which he tried describing as a "THC-like pill."
THC is the actual component that gets you high. It's also [I believe] not one of the medicinally useful Cannabinoids.
That's not true. Marinol (dronabinol) is THC and is available by prescription. It's used for stopping extreme vomiting but they use it as a last resort after others haven't worked and also used for AIDS-associated anorexia/weight loss. And it's commonly used for pain (even thought that's an off-label use here in the US).
What I could see is making a pill with some of the other Cannabinoids, which might actually be useful. There are something like 300 of them, many of which seem to offer medicinal benefits. It seems like it might be more feasible to make a strain of marijuana that just lacks THC but still has all of the other compounds in it which would still offer the medicinal benefits.
In Canada, they've got a prescription pain mouth spray that's composed of THC plus cannabidiol. Apparently approved for MS patients for spasticity and neuropathic pain. And there's research that cannabidiol reduces the possible psychotic effects of THC and that it alone can also be used to reduce effects of schizophrenia.
-
Ok you might be right sly. I maybe I'm just remembering what he told me wrong. Perhaps it was a new substance that has the medicinal effects of MJ without the high.
So back to my point regarding that, there is medicine that will do what medical marijuana does, but people opt not to take it when presented the option. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, just throwing it out there that it exists and this happened.
-
And back to my original response to your point, if it's a chemical that those douchebags at Merck want a gazillion dollars a month for (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Pharmacologic_THC_and_THC_derivatives), then why is that better than something which, not only can you grow for free in your back yard, but also gets you high?
-
And back to my original response to your point, if it's a chemical that those douchebags at Merck want a gazillion dollars a month for (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Pharmacologic_THC_and_THC_derivatives), then why is that better than something which, not only can you grow for free in your back yard, but also gets you high?
Well I'm not saying its better. Although potentially more healthy for you if you aren't breathing in smoke.
-
I know they have a form of LSD that doesn't make you trip that helps some folks that get crazy headaches. BUT IT'S STILL ILLEGALZ BECUZ ITS A DRUGS AND DRUG IS BAD
-
I don't think there's anything wrong with the philosophy that judgment-altering substances are either "bad" or should be monitored.
-
I don't think there's anything wrong with the philosophy that judgment-altering substances are either "bad" or should be monitored.
You mean, like alcohol?
oh, wait...
-
I don't think there's anything wrong with the philosophy that judgment-altering substances are either "bad" or should be monitored.
Why? It can be both good and bad. It depends on the person. If someone does drugs and then does something bad because of drugs, just have that punishment be extremely harsh.
Or we can keep pretending that without drugs like pot and LSD the world would be a better place and no more bad things will happen to good people.
-
Why? It can be both good and bad. It depends on the person.
Oh, well you know me and my belief in objective moral values.
-
Right, so then you don't do drugs because you think its morally wrong. However there are drugs that aren't going to be harming anyone so why make them follow your moral values if they don't believe in them? Seems a bit rude to me.
-
Why? It can be both good and bad. It depends on the person.
Oh, well you know me and my belief in objective moral values.
Laws don't exist to enforce morality, they exist to protect people - e.g. I personally think that adultery is wrong, but there's no reason to make it illegal.
-
There's nothing more bullshit than the "objective moral" argument. I can't stand that.
-
There's nothing more bullshit than the "objective moral" argument. I can't stand that.
-
And why is getting stoned contrary to an objective morality?
-
There is NOT an objective morality.
-
And why is getting stoned contrary to an objective morality?
Because it so obviously shows you that reality is not objective, so that contrary to objective morality, objective morality is not true.
-
Morality is subjective. Objective morality is an oxymoron.
Definition:
Objective - adjective
i. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
ii. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
iii. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
Moral - adjective
i. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
ii. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work;
iii. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
-
Yeah I think the majority of us know that. Though some people tend to use that as an argument against legalizing marijuana , and it doesn't make any sense.
-
You'd be surprised, most religious people conflate Judeo-Christian moral's with objective morality.
-
So back to my point regarding that, there is medicine that will do what medical marijuana does, but people opt not to take it when presented the option. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, just throwing it out there that it exists and this happened.
1) To be frank, it doesn't feel intellectually honest to say both that "people choose to use marijuana instead of another option and that's neither good nor bad" and "people choosing marijuana proves they only did it because they want to get high." The latter is not only invalid but it's clearly a disparaging remark about the people.
2) There's so much more that goes into this. Does the medicine in question work equally well for everyone as marijuana? And in absence of you having a definitive answer, I'll assume it's a "no" since every drug in existence works differently for different people. What are the side effects of the drug? What about cost? Etc.
-
Before you get all bent outta shape at me, I just wanna say I'm all for medical marijuana, or just marijuana in general for those who want it. I was just bringing up a point why the push to legalize through the guise of health benefits is a silly way to go for it.
-
Before you get all bent outta shape at me, I just wanna say I'm all for medical marijuana, or just marijuana in general for those who want it. I was just bringing up a point why the push to legalize through the guise of health benefits is a silly way to go for it.
And I'm actually inclined to agree. Obviously I'm pro-pot, but honestly, the people who need it as medicine are far outnumbered by the people who just want to get stoned.
-
Before you get all bent outta shape at me, I just wanna say I'm all for medical marijuana, or just marijuana in general for those who want it. I was just bringing up a point why the push to legalize through the guise of health benefits is a silly way to go for it.
And I'm actually inclined to agree. Obviously I'm pro-pot, but honestly, the people who need it as medicine are far outnumbered by the people who just want to get stoned.
Indeed. And for those who want to get stoned, they can benefit from some preventative medicine (Alzheimer, cancer's, etc).
-
So at the show tonight in Clearwater, I can almost guarantee that someone was smoking weed during Dream Theater's set. It was a sit-down venue and i just thought that i would never have expected someone to be smoking during the show. I couldn't see anyone doing it around me though, or any smoke.
-
So at the show tonight in Clearwater, I can almost guarantee that someone was smoking weed during Dream Theater's set. It was a sit-down venue and i just thought that i would never have expected someone to be smoking during the show. I couldn't see anyone doing it around me though, or any smoke.
I don't think I've ever been to a show where people aren't smoking weed. Even sit down shows.
-
Yee Gods. So this is what the world's become. A person smoking dope at a rock concert is now noteworthy.
-
No no no, it really hasn't.
-
Yee Gods. So this is what the world's become. A person smoking dope at a rock concert is now noteworthy.
Slow down there cowboy, he just said that he didn't expect it.
People who smoke at concerts are kind of assholes. Not everyone wants to smell that shit. It's like people who bring big signs and block the view of everyone behind them. It's inconsiderate and arrogant.
-
As a non Pot Smoker (I did my fair share in my youth) I would be ok with legalizing it. Just regulate it like alcohol.
-
Yee Gods. So this is what the world's become. A person smoking dope at a rock concert is now noteworthy.
Slow down there cowboy, he just said that he didn't expect it.
People who smoke at concerts are kind of assholes. Not everyone wants to smell that shit. It's like people who bring big signs and block the view of everyone behind them. It's inconsiderate and arrogant.
This made me chuckle. :lol I'm guessing you're probably 30-ish or younger? When I was in my late-teens/early twenties, you could not go a rock concert of any kind without getting a contact high from all of the second hand pot smoke, and you'd probably be handed a joint at least a few times. This happened at every concert without fail, and it was just an expected cultural norm. (we're talking late 70's / early 80's btw)
No one ever complained about it back then. It's interesting how much times have changed, that's all.
FWIW, I would never spark up at a show now.
-
Yee Gods. So this is what the world's become. A person smoking dope at a rock concert is now noteworthy.
Slow down there cowboy, he just said that he didn't expect it.
People who smoke at concerts are kind of assholes. Not everyone wants to smell that shit. It's like people who bring big signs and block the view of everyone behind them. It's inconsiderate and arrogant.
This made me chuckle. :lol I'm guessing you're probably 30-ish or younger? When I was in my late-teens/early twenties, you could not go a rock concert of any kind without getting a contact high from all of the second hand pot smoke, and you'd probably be handed a joint at least a few times. This happened at every concert without fail, and it was just an expected cultural norm. (we're talking late 70's / early 80's btw)
No one ever complained about it back then. It's interesting how much times have changed, that's all.
FWIW, I would never spark up at a show now.
25 :lol
-
I worked in a concert hall for like three years.... this one time, when I was busing all the empty beer bottles, this guy asked me, 'So it's okay if we smoke weed in here?' It was by far the dumbest thing I've ever been asked. I can't remember if I even gave him a response. I guess he saw so many other people smoking, and security not donig anything about it, that he thought it was cool.
By the way, it completely depends on the show. Some shows, you won't see much weed. Other shows, security was told to just ignore it because they would've had to kick everyone out.
-
It reminds me of a g3 show in san Diego where there were no smoking signs everywhere. When security saw the guy in front of us smoking what he thought was a cigarette he demanded him to put it out. When he saw it was a joint he chuckled and walked aiway.
-
It reminds me of a g3 show in san Diego where there were no smoking signs everywhere. When security saw the guy in front of us smoking what he thought was a cigarette he demanded him to put it out. When he saw it was a joint he chuckled and walked aiway.
And therein lies the problem. All of the venues are non-smoking now. If people act like your Hitler because you smoke a Marlboro, then it's pretty hard to get away with smoking a joint, which is strangely more acceptable at most concerts. Naturally, I'll chalk this up to the continuing pussification of America.
-
Morality is subjective. Objective morality is an oxymoron.
Definition:
Objective - adjective
i. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
ii. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
iii. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
Moral - adjective
i. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
ii. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work;
iii. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
Well, I don't know about that. There are absolutes. I suspect that all moral questions can find answers in derivatives of those absolutes.
-
What absolutes?
-
There are no absolutes. We've been over this countless times on other subjects as well.
-
There are no absolutes. We've been over this countless times on other subjects as well.
There are absolutely no absolutes. ;)
-
There are no absolutes. We've been over this countless times on other subjects as well.
There are absolutely no absolutes. ;)
This was also covered many times before. :lol
-
What absolutes?
:whatthe:
-
It reminds me of a g3 show in san Diego where there were no smoking signs everywhere. When security saw the guy in front of us smoking what he thought was a cigarette he demanded him to put it out. When he saw it was a joint he chuckled and walked aiway.
At outdoor concerts in CT you will smell weed no matter where you are, especially if its DMB, Tom Petty, etc... Indoor veniews are a lot stricter.
-
If weed were legal we would have to waste tax payer money on this shit...
Similar products are marketed as incense and are inhaled. I used them for months on end a year or so ago. They were effective as hell and 1/3 the price of what's on the streets.
https://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr102111.html
Over the past several months, there has been a growing use of, and interest in, synthetic stimulants sold under the guise of “bath salts” or “plant food”. Marketed under names such as “Ivory Wave”, “Purple Wave”, “Vanilla Sky” or “Bliss”, these products are comprised of a class of chemicals perceived as mimics of cocaine, LSD, MDMA, and/or methamphetamine. Users have reported impaired perception, reduced motor control, disorientation, extreme paranoia, and violent episodes. The long-term physical and psychological effects of use are unknown but potentially severe. These products have become increasingly popular, particularly among teens and young adults, and are sold at a variety of retail outlets, in head shops and over the Internet. However, they have not been approved by the FDA for human consumption or for medical use, and there is no oversight of the manufacturing process.
-
I just wanna chime in and say that during the Roger Waters Wall tour, I lit up a joint in the first 5 minutes.
And this security lady came over and warned me that she would throw me out if she saw it again.
At Roger Waters.... seriously? :lol I usually don't smoke during concerts because it's pretty hard to not be seen doing it, but I figured if I would be able to get away with smoking pot at any show it would have been Roger Waters.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT I WAS SOBER FOR THE SECOND HALF AND IT WAS FAR LESS INTERESTING THAN IT COULD HAVE BEEN
-
I just wanna chime in and say that during the Roger Waters Wall tour, I lit up a joint in the first 5 minutes.
And this security lady came over and warned me that she would throw me out if she saw it again.
At Roger Waters.... seriously? :lol I usually don't smoke during concerts because it's pretty hard to not be seen doing it, but I figured if I would be able to get away with smoking pot at any show it would have been Roger Waters.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT I WAS SOBER FOR THE SECOND HALF AND IT WAS FAR LESS INTERESTING THAN IT COULD HAVE BEEN
The problem with this line of thinking is that just because you find it should be socially acceptable at that concert to smoke pot... it is still currently considered an illegal action. It doesn't matter where you are or what band is playing.
-
I just wanna chime in and say that during the Roger Waters Wall tour, I lit up a joint in the first 5 minutes.
And this security lady came over and warned me that she would throw me out if she saw it again.
At Roger Waters.... seriously? :lol I usually don't smoke during concerts because it's pretty hard to not be seen doing it, but I figured if I would be able to get away with smoking pot at any show it would have been Roger Waters.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT I WAS SOBER FOR THE SECOND HALF AND IT WAS FAR LESS INTERESTING THAN IT COULD HAVE BEEN
The problem with this line of thinking is that just because you find it should be socially acceptable at that concert to smoke pot... it is still currently considered an illegal action. It doesn't matter where you are or what band is playing.
Its an unspoken exception to marijuana laws... They don't apply at a Roger Waters concert.
-
It reminds me of a g3 show in san Diego where there were no smoking signs everywhere. When security saw the guy in front of us smoking what he thought was a cigarette he demanded him to put it out. When he saw it was a joint he chuckled and walked aiway.
And therein lies the problem. All of the venues are non-smoking now. If people act like your Hitler because you smoke a Marlboro, then it's pretty hard to get away with smoking a joint, which is strangely more acceptable at most concerts. Naturally, I'll chalk this up to the continuing pussification of America.
:clap:
Exactly.
-
The problem with this line of thinking is that just because you find it should be socially acceptable at that concert to smoke pot... it is still currently considered an illegal action. It doesn't matter where you are or what band is playing.
I'm aware of this, it's just this is the one of the only times I've seen a security guard go after someone for pot. It's kind of a rare thing up here in New England. Plus, they were on lookout the ENTIRE night (I managed to sneak another hit in from the two 50 year old dudes next to me passing a joint :lol) And it just amazes me that the one time I ever get in trouble it's at Roger Waters, which is pretty much...
an unspoken exception to marijuana laws... They don't apply at a Roger Waters concert.
:lol
-
That sorta surprises me too. At least at my venue, there were nights where security explicitly didn't even bother to try. I mean, what the fuck are you going to do at a Kotton Mouth Kings concert, kick every single person out?
-
The thing is that it's not the job of some minimum wage ticket-takers to enforce the Health and Safety Code of the State of Texas. Now that all indoor venues are smoke free, it is there job to enforce smoking bans, regardless of what's being smoked. Some places are more stringent than others. Personally, I think it's pretty silly.
On a side note, I'm probably one of the only people to ever light one up in the crown jewel of Fort Worth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_Performance_Hall). Took about 45 seconds before a maglite was shining in my eyes from one of the ushers. After the show I somewhat sarcastically asked her if she took her job seriously enough. She replied that they take that building very seriously. Damn fine answer, actually, for which I commended her. They have a very keen interest in making sure that stoned Tull fans don't burn holes in their seats, and she was right to single me out.
That said, there's a big difference between those types of venues and the arenas that Waters is playing. There's going to be a significant difference in the amount of acceptable wear and tear on the venue. But again, it has nothing to do with wear and tear, and everything to do with living in a city wear smokers are seen as evil scum. One's a reasonable notion and the other's bullshit.
And then there's the practical approach to the whole thing, which is that I stopped caring about opening bands a long time ago. Trvium is certainly no exception. I'll be out in the parking lot working on my concert buzz right up to about 8:50 the next three nights. There's no reason to hassle with trying to smoke indoors when the parking lot is perfectly accommodating (and in some places, the cops care less than the hired goons).
-
Observed something on campus this morning. I see it happen all the time and it always infuriates me. I'm walking through the student center and there's a guy who sees his friend. He's a good 100 feet from him and shouts " Yo Phil! We blazin tonight, word?!". Phil responds " hells yeah!" , followed by a putting a joint to the mouth gesture. I smoked heavy for several years. I mean, I went months at a time without there being a moment when I wasn't awake and stoned. I never once felt the urge to glorify it in front of a crowd of a hundred people. These guys obviously smoke on the reg together all the time. Are they that desperate for attention that they have to announce it to a bunch of strangers who don't give a shit and probably are all thinking about what a huge tool he is?
I really wanted to just walk up and beat the kid, I'm not really sure why. I am absolutely disgusted when people display that kind of behavior in regards to weed. It's those kind of actions that continue to give weed a bad stigma with people. I have cut back a lot on my smoking. I only toke once every other week now (if that), but my views on its legalization have gone unchanged.
-
Observed something on campus this morning. I see it happen all the time and it always infuriates me. I'm walking through the student center and there's a guy who sees his friend. He's a good 100 feet from him and shouts " Yo Phil! We blazin tonight, word?!". Phil responds " hells yeah!" , followed by a putting a joint to the mouth gesture. I smoked heavy for several years. I mean, I went months at a time without there being a moment when I wasn't awake and stoned. I never once felt the urge to glorify it in front of a crowd of a hundred people. These guys obviously smoke on the reg together all the time. Are they that desperate for attention that they have to announce it to a bunch of strangers who don't give a shit and probably are all thinking about what a huge tool he is?
My opinion: they were doing it to be funny, although I'm sure they got fucking toasted shit later on that day
-
Nah, they were probably just being standard college douche bags who think putting any kind of substance in your body is something cool and new and revolutionary and everyone within ear range needs to know about it.
-
It should be legalized for the fact you can't know the effect it will have. Sure people can discern the positives and negatives but you'll never know if you don't try. If it's truly a problem than make it illegal and things will go back to normal.
-
Even when you know the effect, the stuff should be legal. If we think we should ban everything with known deleterious effects, then we should go and ban sugar consumption by people with diabetes mellitus and peanut consumption by anyone who's had anaphylaxis to it.
-
Article about Obama's war on pot. https://www.dallasobserver.com/2011-10-20/news/obama-s-war-on-weed/
Despite telling everybody his DOJ was going to back off when he got elected, he's actually gone after them quite a bit harder than Chimpy did. Raids have increased. They're threatening banks that house accounts for dispensaries with money laundering charges. They're bullying landlords with seizure threats if they lease property to dispensaries or grows. They're threatening media outlets for running pro-pot advertisements (which has the intended effect of stifling discussion). The IRS is finding ways to stick people with evasion by disallowing standard deductions. Ashcroft certainly liked to threaten Cali stoners, but aside from busting Tommy Chong just for the trophy aspect, he didn't really go out of his way to interfere too much; he was more concerned about T&A than pot.
This really just further solidifies my opinion that Obama honestly is a worthless piece of shit.
-
How much is Obama actually involved in all of that? Perhaps he's more concerned with the economy, wall street, and international affairs to be hands-on regarding marijuana... and the fact that he's not being hands-on could allow for people to basically start doing things he doesn't agree with.
I've discovered something rather disturbing about American politics over the past like... 5 years. Everything that the government does, at any time, is blamed on the President, when in fact the President has very limited power, and is not a monarch. The way everyone behaves, it's like the President has the power of a king, who can pass laws they want, who can do whatever they want, to get things done. I'm sure the House of Rep's absolutely love this scape-goating.
*edit*
I mean, you know my position on weed, so obviously I disagree with what the government is doing. But the problem is with the laws, not the person and people who enforce those laws. It's corruption of the government when public servants serve their own interests over the laws they are supposed to be enforcing. Change the laws.
-
The attorney general is a cabinet level position. He sets the DOJ's priorities on behalf of the president. In any case, the US attorney's office in Cali has said that they're operating with Dickhead's blessing.
-
Well then, I still have to say the major problem is with the laws himself. Sir Dickhead is obligated to enforce the laws of the land, and the law of the land is pure bullshit. I mean, you and I can probably both agree that the amount of "medical" marijuana user's is pure bullshit (there are people who actually benefit from it medically, but those people are far outnumbered by people just getting the card to bypass the law).
I blame Congress more than I blame Obama, because Congress has the power to just end the entire "War on Drugs," and end the fucking bullshit at it's source.
-
The whole of Congress didn't say in their campaigns that medical marijuana busts would be a waste of DOJ resources.
-
Add to that, this is a law that nobody wants enforced. In this case, the people of California certainly seem pretty happy with their arrangement. While he might be obliged to enforce the law of the land, the president has always exercised discretion in how laws are enforced. His maniac predecessor didn't seem to care too much, except in soundbites.
-
Add to that, this is a law that nobody wants enforced. In this case, the people of California certainly seem pretty happy with their arrangement. While he might be obliged to enforce the law of the land, the president has always exercised discretion in how laws are enforced. His maniac predecessor didn't seem to care too much, except in soundbites.
And the medical marijuana industry wasn't what it was today.
The whole of Congress didn't say in their campaigns that medical marijuana busts would be a waste of DOJ resources.
So what? The President may agree with that, but that doesn't mean he has the full authority to just ignore the law. Like I already pointed out, the "Medical Marijuana" industry is mostly a joke, and those that actually need it is overshadowed by a bunch for 20 year olds with insomnia. It's not the President's job to effectively rewrite laws, it's his job to enforce them. If Obama promised to effectively rewrite a law, he was wrong - that's Congresses job, so start going after your congressmen to address this issue.
-
With infinite resources, the "he can't ignore the law" argument would be an interesting one. In the real world it isn't. Every day, LEAs allocate resources based on priorities, and the DOJ is no different. With finite resources, you can't enforce every law. You prioritize. He's choosing to have resources allocated to something he said before wasn't of much priority, and also something that the state of California doesn't particularly want him meddling in.
-
This is like getting angry at a referee for calling passing interference, becuase they can't always catch passing interference.
After Obama said he was going to let states decide, people took it upon themselves to them take advantage of that. He's going after the people who are trying to take advantage of that, and until he busts an old lady with glaucoma, I'm not gonna really say he's any better or worse than his predecessor. His predecessor didn't have the situation he has, so it's ridiculous to compare the two.
Can't we just agree that the law shouldn't be the law, and that the best solution is to get congress to abolish the law?
-
The referee is a false analogy. It's a matter of available resources.
And while I agree that people are taking advantage of the situation, if his DOJ is preventing the old lady with glaucoma from getting her bud, then I think it's a problem. Contrary to what he says, they're not going after big commercial enterprises, although I don't see why that would even matter. They're stifling the entire program by undermining all facets of it.
Of course we agree that congress is full of shit in this regard, but that's not going to change. Plenty of presidents have chosen what laws to enforce and how vigorously to enforce them. Chimpy's issue was porn. Nobody else seems to care about federal obscenity statutes. Honestly, I'm kind of puzzled why you're defending him.
-
Because he's only doing his sworn duty? I don't want a cop who only enforces the law's he wants to enforce. I don't want a President who only enforces the law's he wants to enforce. The best reason I can give you as to why I believe this is to read Kant's "What is Enlightenment." It strikes me as a perversion and a corruption of the government to allow private interests to corrupt the public's desires.
Here's a weird argument: since Obama is stringently enforcing the law, he's pissing people off, and at the same time making us realize what a giant waste of resources the entire ordeal is. By actually enforcing the laws that are on the books, it allows people to realize how bullshit some of those laws are, which will turn into their repeal. If Obama wasn't enforcing the law, it would simply create a bigger industry, and then come the next Republican president, and you'd see a crackdown which would have even worse consequences, and we'd be stuck with the law people forgot was actually in place, becuase we forgot it was there, and never did anything about it.
Now, I agree it's a waste of resources, but unless Obama dismantles the entire War on Drugs, we're already talking about a waste of resources, and Obama doesn't have that power. What we're really talking about is how to direct resources that are already wasted. I mean, if they weren't going after the marijuana industry, what would the DEA target... crack, cocaine, lsd, ecstasy? Is that really a better use of resources, or just a different way of wasting them? Or if it's porn... do you really consider that a better use of resources? I'd rather dismantle the DEA, and stop the waste of resources from ever happening.
-
Because he's only doing his sworn duty? I don't want a cop who only enforces the law's he wants to enforce.
And I want cops to consider whether an infraction is worth enforcing. Like I want a guy who runs a red light to get a ticket, but I don't want a guy who went across the "stopping line" at a stoplight by a few inches and didn't enter get into the opposing lane of traffic or even the crosswalk to get one. Oh and you could argue that it's not his/her place to decide (since that's for a judge) but in the end enforcing every little thing like that would only result in us wasting lots of time/money over a bunch of little stuff.
-
Because he's only doing his sworn duty? I don't want a cop who only enforces the law's he wants to enforce.
And I want cops to consider whether an infraction is worth enforcing. Like I want a guy who runs a red light to get a ticket, but I don't want a guy who went across the "stopping line" at a stoplight by a few inches and didn't enter get into the opposing lane of traffic or even the crosswalk to get one. Oh and you could argue that it's not his/her place to decide (since that's for a judge) but in the end enforcing every little thing like that would only result in us wasting lots of time/money over a bunch of little stuff.
Intentionally buying, growing, or selling something isn't comparable to not being able to be perfect. Is going 45 mph in a 35 mph zone really all that big of a deal? I could easily argue that cops shouldn't worry about things like that, because they could be doing something more vital and important, but I don't think a cop should be the one making that decision.
Imagine your local cops didn't care too much about you going 45 mph in a 35 mph zone (I've lived in places where they don't); since the law on the books still says 35 mph is the speed limit, you might get lulled into a false sense of security going 45 mph in that zone. Then all it takes is one new cop, or one cop that decides he wants to pull someone going 45mph in that 35 mph zone, and you get screwed. Obama changing how the law is enforced doesn't change the law, and all it means is that once someone new comes in and decides they want to enforce the retarded drug war laws in order for them to start enforcing it. A lot of people would end up getting fucked in the process, becuase they wrongly thought they were safe.
I mean, I agree with you that you can get to a point where it becomes ridiculous; Obama could decide to put a lot of effort into preventing jaywalking, for instance. But either way, the DEA is going to exist, and the War on Drugs is going to exist.
-
Since we were discussing this back in November, 200+ dispensaries have shuttered in California amid threats of federal prosecution. The recent Oaksterdam bust in particular had a tremendous chilling effect, since it was really targeting the operator who was one of Cali's bigger activists. Moreover, it would appear that they're coordinating their efforts to scare the bejeezus out of states that might want to enact similar legislation of their own. Delaware appears to have backed off out of concern that state employees in charge of regulation would fall into the crosshairs of Dickhead's DOJ, per DOJ memos.
Honestly, I'm having a hard time coming up with a single example of where this asshole's even tried to the president he claimed he would.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/26/obama-still-unclear-on-medical-marijuana/
-
Ya, I gotta say, this is a weird one for me. Seemed like it took a little while for Holder to come out and say that Obama would let states decide, making it seem as if it was an official decision, but now it appears that was completely false.
His statement about the Drug War recently was disheartening too. Hopefuly, he was actually serious about being open to the facts and the debate, but he made some pretty ridiculous claims.
-
What's troubling is that their initial policy was to only act when there was a violation of both state and federal laws. This made the states very happy. It was of course bullshit, and now you have coalition of state AG's asking WTF. All the while, Dickhead continues to act like everything's exactly how he said it would be, while he pushes this rather surprising agenda all over the place.
-
Since I wasn't in the conversation back in November, I feel the need to insert my two cents... Legalize it (along with other drugs), and ensure safe sale, with high taxes.
-
Since I wasn't in the conversation back in November, I feel the need to insert my two cents... Legalize it (along with other drugs), and ensure safe sale, with high taxes.
Exactly this. I was in Amsterdam a couple weeks back and I can tell you it works perfectly.
-
I heard the Netherlands is changing their policy so foreigners can't get weed, but I may be way off. Maybe it's mushrooms.
-
Legalize, regulate, and tax it. I am a normal user and a productive member of society. Its a shame people can legally get shit faced on alcohol but can't relax on a j.
-
I heard the Netherlands is changing their policy so foreigners can't get weed, but I may be way off. Maybe it's mushrooms.
You're spot on. Starting May they are requiring people wanting to buy weed to show a residence card. They implemented this law because they were getting over 2 million tourists every weekend and their infrastructure could not hold. They are hoping that not allowing foreingers to but weed will dicrease that number.
-
I heard the Netherlands is changing their policy so foreigners can't get weed, but I may be way off. Maybe it's mushrooms.
You're spot on. Starting May they are requiring people wanting to buy weed to show a residence card. They implemented this law because they were getting over 2 million tourists every weekend and their infrastructure could not hold. They are hoping that not allowing foreingers to but weed will dicrease that number.
Probably more than they're going to like, I'll bet.
-
I heard the Netherlands is changing their policy so foreigners can't get weed, but I may be way off. Maybe it's mushrooms.
You're spot on. Starting May they are requiring people wanting to buy weed to show a residence card. They implemented this law because they were getting over 2 million tourists every weekend and their infrastructure could not hold. They are hoping that not allowing foreingers to but weed will dicrease that number.
Probably more than they're going to like, I'll bet.
Indeed. Although I thought it was just an Amsterdam thing, and not a national initiative. If that's the case, and the dopers can do their thing outside of the capital, I'd say it's a good move and should improve things for everybody.
-
I heard the Netherlands is changing their policy so foreigners can't get weed, but I may be way off. Maybe it's mushrooms.
You're spot on. Starting May they are requiring people wanting to buy weed to show a residence card. They implemented this law because they were getting over 2 million tourists every weekend and their infrastructure could not hold. They are hoping that not allowing foreingers to but weed will dicrease that number.
Probably more than they're going to like, I'll bet.
Indeed. Although I thought it was just an Amsterdam thing, and not a national initiative. If that's the case, and the dopers can do their thing outside of the capital, I'd say it's a good move and should improve things for everybody.
I think the problem was in another city that's closer to Germany.
-
I heard the Netherlands is changing their policy so foreigners can't get weed, but I may be way off. Maybe it's mushrooms.
You're spot on. Starting May they are requiring people wanting to buy weed to show a residence card. They implemented this law because they were getting over 2 million tourists every weekend and their infrastructure could not hold. They are hoping that not allowing foreingers to but weed will dicrease that number.
Probably more than they're going to like, I'll bet.
Indeed. Although I thought it was just an Amsterdam thing, and not a national initiative. If that's the case, and the dopers can do their thing outside of the capital, I'd say it's a good move and should improve things for everybody.
I think the problem was in another city that's closer to Germany.
yup, they are experimenting with it along the border (also in the city I live in, Nijmegen) but there are heavy protests from the coffeeshop owners and users. I'm guessing this whole deal will not go through in its current form since our (conservative right wing(for our standards)) gov just fell last week and we will have new elections in September and will probably end up with a more progressive (left or right) cabinet.
-
That's going to kill tourism in Amsterdam. Every single person I know who has ever been there has been there precisely because it was legal to buy weed.
As for Obama's policy here in the states: It's bullshit. And very, very disappointing, like a LOT of things about him. Not even sure if I'm going to vote this year.
-
There are reasons to hit up Amsterdam other than legal drugs. A semi-regular here did just that a few months ago. Nice scenery and interesting culture. That said, this would still have a tremendous effect on tourism there, and probably be the beginning of the end for a helluva lot of their tourism related industry.
-
That's going to kill tourism in Amsterdam. Every single person I know who has ever been there has been there precisely because it was legal to buy weed.
As for Obama's policy here in the states: It's bullshit. And very, very disappointing, like a LOT of things about him. Not even sure if I'm going to vote this year.
Not to turn this into a presidential debate, but vote ron Paul. I believe he wants to legalize weed. He won't get the republican nomination but hopefully he still gets on the ballet. If you weren't going to vote anyway then what the hell. That's how I feel.
-
Every single person I know who has ever been there has been there precisely because it was legal to buy weed.
Hey, lets spend a grand, and several days, to do something I can do for 10 bucks in my living room!
-
Every single person I know who has ever been there has been there precisely because it was legal to buy weed.
Hey, lets spend a grand, and several days, to do something I can do for 10 bucks in my living room!
To be fair being in Amsterdam, which is a lovely city, and hitting up all of the awesome coffee shops and trying all of the different strains of herb they have there is a bit different of an experience then taking bong rips in your living room. If they really do go through with this no weed for tourists thing then I'm really glad I got a chance to experience it.
-
Every single person I know who has ever been there has been there precisely because it was legal to buy weed.
Hey, lets spend a grand, and several days, to do something I can do for 10 bucks in my living room!
To be fair being in Amsterdam, which is a lovely city, and hitting up all of the awesome coffee shops and trying all of the different strains of herb they have there is a bit different of an experience then taking bong rips in your living room. If they really do go through with this no weed for tourists thing then I'm really glad I got a chance to experience it.
Of course the experience is different no doubt. But it isnt an experience that is worth that kind of time and money. Seriously.
But if you are going to also experience the country/culture/people/etc. then I can 100% dig that.
-
https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/college-student-claims-left-cell-five-days-without-153200359.html
Arrest kid for smoking pot on 4/20. Lock him in a cell with methamphetamine in it for 5 days. Holy tits.
-
https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/college-student-claims-left-cell-five-days-without-153200359.html
Arrest kid for smoking pot on 4/20. Lock him in a cell with methamphetamine in it for 5 days. Holy tits.
He'll be making a nice trip to Amsterdam with the $ he gets from the lawsuit.
-
Every single person I know who has ever been there has been there precisely because it was legal to buy weed.
Hey, lets spend a grand, and several days, to do something I can do for 10 bucks in my living room!
To be fair being in Amsterdam, which is a lovely city, and hitting up all of the awesome coffee shops and trying all of the different strains of herb they have there is a bit different of an experience then taking bong rips in your living room. If they really do go through with this no weed for tourists thing then I'm really glad I got a chance to experience it.
Of course the experience is different no doubt. But it isnt an experience that is worth that kind of time and money. Seriously.
But if you are going to also experience the country/culture/people/etc. then I can 100% dig that.
I agree that spending a lot of money just to do that doesn't make sense. I was there as a part of a bigger trip around Europe and trust me, it was totally worth it. Besides getting to smoke some awesome stuff, everyone there is really cool, there city is quite beautiful and I even got invited a couple of beers by some random dutch guys in a bar.
I think Ryzee was saying is that the experience of going into a coffee shop, meeting people there, smoking with them and all is actually very cool. Also, since it's legal, they are able to get very good strains and trust me, it's not the same that you can get somewhere else.
-
Every single person I know who has ever been there has been there precisely because it was legal to buy weed.
Hey, lets spend a grand, and several days, to do something I can do for 10 bucks in my living room!
To be fair being in Amsterdam, which is a lovely city, and hitting up all of the awesome coffee shops and trying all of the different strains of herb they have there is a bit different of an experience then taking bong rips in your living room. If they really do go through with this no weed for tourists thing then I'm really glad I got a chance to experience it.
Of course the experience is different no doubt. But it isnt an experience that is worth that kind of time and money. Seriously.
But if you are going to also experience the country/culture/people/etc. then I can 100% dig that.
I agree that spending a lot of money just to do that doesn't make sense. I was there as a part of a bigger trip around Europe and trust me, it was totally worth it. Besides getting to smoke some awesome stuff, everyone there is really cool, there city is quite beautiful and I even got invited a couple of beers by some random dutch guys in a bar.
I think Ryzee was saying is that the experience of going into a coffee shop, meeting people there, smoking with them and all is actually very cool. Also, since it's legal, they are able to get very good strains and trust me, it's not the same that you can get somewhere else.
#1) Was the bar called the Blue Oyster?
#2) Trust me, I can get stuff every bit as good as anywhere in the world. Most likely the very same strains. Just need to know the right people.
-
Every single person I know who has ever been there has been there precisely because it was legal to buy weed.
Hey, lets spend a grand, and several days, to do something I can do for 10 bucks in my living room!
To be fair being in Amsterdam, which is a lovely city, and hitting up all of the awesome coffee shops and trying all of the different strains of herb they have there is a bit different of an experience then taking bong rips in your living room. If they really do go through with this no weed for tourists thing then I'm really glad I got a chance to experience it.
Of course the experience is different no doubt. But it isnt an experience that is worth that kind of time and money. Seriously.
But if you are going to also experience the country/culture/people/etc. then I can 100% dig that.
I agree that spending a lot of money just to do that doesn't make sense. I was there as a part of a bigger trip around Europe and trust me, it was totally worth it. Besides getting to smoke some awesome stuff, everyone there is really cool, there city is quite beautiful and I even got invited a couple of beers by some random dutch guys in a bar.
I think Ryzee was saying is that the experience of going into a coffee shop, meeting people there, smoking with them and all is actually very cool. Also, since it's legal, they are able to get very good strains and trust me, it's not the same that you can get somewhere else.
Yup. I also went there as part of a bigger trip around Europe, and the city is beautiful and has a lot of great cultural things to experience (Rijksmuseum, Van Gogh Museum, Anne Frank's house, Heineken brewery hehe) but I will admit that for 19 year old me the coffee shops were the primary attraction. And they're all different. Some were big, some were more intimate. Some served food too, some had full bars, pool tables, etc. And the tourists there aren't just Americans, they're from all over the world. Chillin out drinking beers, shooting pool and sharing a joint with cool cats from around the world was one of the best experiences of my life. I don't see how this ban on weed for tourists thing will be a good thing for the city in the long run, but like I said if they do go through with it I'm glad I got to go there before they did. :hat
-
https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/college-student-claims-left-cell-five-days-without-153200359.html
Arrest kid for smoking pot on 4/20. Lock him in a cell with methamphetamine in it for 5 days. Holy tits.
Whoa. That's unbelievable.
-
https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/college-student-claims-left-cell-five-days-without-153200359.html
Arrest kid for smoking pot on 4/20. Lock him in a cell with methamphetamine in it for 5 days. Holy tits.
I am very freaked out by that. It reminds me of a certain lyric:
"how can I feel abandoned, even when the world surrounds me"
-
Every single person I know who has ever been there has been there precisely because it was legal to buy weed.
Hey, lets spend a grand, and several days, to do something I can do for 10 bucks in my living room!
To be fair being in Amsterdam, which is a lovely city, and hitting up all of the awesome coffee shops and trying all of the different strains of herb they have there is a bit different of an experience then taking bong rips in your living room. If they really do go through with this no weed for tourists thing then I'm really glad I got a chance to experience it.
Of course the experience is different no doubt. But it isnt an experience that is worth that kind of time and money. Seriously.
But if you are going to also experience the country/culture/people/etc. then I can 100% dig that.
I agree that spending a lot of money just to do that doesn't make sense. I was there as a part of a bigger trip around Europe and trust me, it was totally worth it. Besides getting to smoke some awesome stuff, everyone there is really cool, there city is quite beautiful and I even got invited a couple of beers by some random dutch guys in a bar.
I think Ryzee was saying is that the experience of going into a coffee shop, meeting people there, smoking with them and all is actually very cool. Also, since it's legal, they are able to get very good strains and trust me, it's not the same that you can get somewhere else.
#2) Trust me, I can get stuff every bit as good as anywhere in the world. Most likely the very same strains. Just need to know the right people.
Yeah, same here. I actually passed up Amsterdam when plotting my tour of Europe, largely because I can get anything I'd be interested there, here, and probably cheaper as well.
However, Ryzee makes an interesting point. I hadn't considered that most of the tourists would be Europeans. My most enjoyable times in Europe were actually hanging out with locals or European tourists. In retrospect, being able to chill with cool foreigners while getting high would have been quite enjoyable. Sorry I missed out on that.
-
Let me also say that, at least when I was there in '99, the weed there was much better and MUCH cheaper than what I was able to get at home. I'd go into more specifics but I don't know if that would violate any rules here or anything and me no want no troubles.
-
In 99 I'm sure that was true. Much has changed since then.
And yeah, we're probably treading the line here. Probably best to get back to the legal/ethical considerations.
-
Dig that. So yeah, we shouldn't legalize weed because that will just turn Americans into even crazier immoral monsters, if that's even possible.
-
My stance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWWOJGYZYpk&feature=g-all-u
-
My stance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWWOJGYZYpk&feature=g-all-u
That was pretty accurate. I really like it when non weed users are on the side of legalization. Its these people that are needed to make it happen. I know a few but none are vocal since they don't use it and don't see a need to advocate something illegal.