You must be Mormon then. After all, yourlogic doesn't hold up unless you refrain from ever drinking alchohol or caffeine.
Of course not. And if we had been talking about prozac, aderal, and that shlt I would have said the same thing about them.
I'm aware of that. But that doesn't make what he wrote in Brave New World any less prescient, or alarming.
Heh. I'm not a Mormon, but I don't drink caffeine and drink alcohol rarely. I'm a triathlete, and imho, hard exercise is countless orders of magnitude better than alchy, or other drugs. And it's real, not some fake chemical stimulant.
I agree that Brave New World was a rather alarming book, especialy considering the huge increase of aderal and prozac perscritions, but you can't compare the drug SOMA, which you were supposed to take if you felt the least bit upset to smoking pot occasionaly.
Anubis
No Lifer
Exactly. And even if they did smoke every day all the time. Doesn?t make them a bad person. Some of the smartest people i know smoke every day. Friend of mine here at school has a 3.8 GPA and is smokes every day at 9PM and more often on the weekends. he?s one of the smartest kinds ive ever met
Had a friend in HS who was ALWAYS stoned got a 1580 on his SATS. He took them stoned. he was taking senior AP classes as a sophomore.
The fact is its not bad for you other then it makes you eat a TON of junk food. i smoke every now and then and i see no problem with that. Thousands of underage kids across the country get drunk and wasted at a college parties every weekend. and for some reason we just accept that. When in fact its much worse then smoking ever will be
You don?t get stoned and drive you car into a pole and kill yourself - or someone else - there is no drunk driving equivalent for weed.
You don?t get stoned and go home and beat your wife and or kids.
You don?t get liver cancer
You don?t get lung cancer
Or any of the other bad things that come from cigarettes
At worst you get really hungry and start to laugh uncontrollably then pass out. Harming absolutely no one other then yourself
Why would you legalize something based on the arguments presented by a bunch of long haired 20 year olds who say "dude" every 5 words? Or rather, would you listen to a lab full of scientists who write 50 page reports on the effects of marijuana? Yeah, exactly. I am not saying that all the reports are 100% accurate, I'm not a scientist. But then again, neither are most of you. However, if a room full of scientists who researched it told me that it had effects which should make it illegal, I would tent to side with them, rather than listen to a 25 year old who hasn't washed his hair in a month... who's only argument is "chille out dude, it doesn't hurt you dude... you're just believing the propaganda dude!"
I'm for the decriminalization of marijuana, and I think that legalizing it and allowing governmental control would solve a lot of problems. However, If I had absolutely no personal opinion in the matter, and I had to vote on it, the side against marijuana wins. The people who make our laws are not supposed to have an opinion. (not always true, but go with it). When people think of pot smokers, they imaging the people I have described.
A law is not going to change based on a bunch of college kids on drugs. Plain and simple.
I realize that there have been an increasing number of studies that state that marijuana has little to no adverse effects. I also realize that many of the old studies done half a century ago have been shown to be invalid in some aspects. But the way things are going, nothing is going to change.
You want the pot laws to change? First, change the stereotypical view of a pot smoker. Then go to college, become a scientist, and prove that it has no adverse effects. Then become a politician and prove that the war on drugs is not successful and chage the law.
99% of you will never do anything to change the law. You will continue to break it purely because you don't think it's right. 99% of you will never write your congressman asking for a re-evaluation of the law. 99% of you will continue sitting in your apartment smoking and eating, and everyone else will not give a damn what you say. 1% of you will actually do something about it.
I'm for the decriminalization of marijuana, and I think that legalizing it and allowing governmental control would solve a lot of problems. However, If I had absolutely no personal opinion in the matter, and I had to vote on it, the side against marijuana wins. The people who make our laws are not supposed to have an opinion. (not always true, but go with it). When people think of pot smokers, they imaging the people I have described.
A law is not going to change based on a bunch of college kids on drugs. Plain and simple.
I realize that there have been an increasing number of studies that state that marijuana has little to no adverse effects. I also realize that many of the old studies done half a century ago have been shown to be invalid in some aspects. But the way things are going, nothing is going to change.
You want the pot laws to change? First, change the stereotypical view of a pot smoker. Then go to college, become a scientist, and prove that it has no adverse effects. Then become a politician and prove that the war on drugs is not successful and chage the law.
99% of you will never do anything to change the law. You will continue to break it purely because you don't think it's right. 99% of you will never write your congressman asking for a re-evaluation of the law. 99% of you will continue sitting in your apartment smoking and eating, and everyone else will not give a damn what you say. 1% of you will actually do something about it.
I would believe any scientist over a bunch of 25 year olds who haven't washed their hair too, if the scientists weren't being paid to do reasearch by the people who wanted it illegal. Being paid kinda makes it hard to be objective eh?
you dont understand.
the canadian government wants to relax laws. they paid for a buncha studies to be done.
it wasnt teh "lets smoke up everyday" commitee that commishioned it, it was a government that did it to see if it was a threat to society and obviously since they are considering it, they found that it wasnt.
http://www.dancesafe.org/ubbthreads...Old=allposts&Main=72500&Search=true#Post72500
Read that on how these damn conservatives wield an undue influence on our politics...with nearly 2 million of our voting age population in prison, which is a 2% swing in the election, and that doesnt even take into account the redistrincting based on population of the electoral votes...
Read that on how these damn conservatives wield an undue influence on our politics...with nearly 2 million of our voting age population in prison, which is a 2% swing in the election, and that doesnt even take into account the redistrincting based on population of the electoral votes...
Right. So when they display their work and are critiqued by their colegues and 3rd party companies with no monetary interest in the matter, and the 3rd party companies come to the same conclusions that the drug should stay illegal, it doesn't matter because the group that initiated the research - NOT the group doing the research, but the group who initialized the funding for the research, was bias?
Hmm.....
I don't drink for the stimulation, but b/c I like a nice wine with my steak or seafood. The only reason for smoking pot is for the chemical effect.
So...like eakers said... if I got a bunch of 25 year old drug opponents, you would believe them any day over the scientists from canada.... afterall, they were paid by the government, and the government wanted to relax the laws.
But the stimulation is still there, thus, your artificial reality
thats like saying I smoke crack for the taste
Originally posted by: tweakmm
But the stimulation is still there, thus, your artificial reality
thats like saying I smoke crack for the taste
One drinks wine for the taste, right?
which studies were you refering to?
I was under the assumtion that you were refering to the studies from the "reefer maddness" era, which were completely biased. If you were making a reference to the studies done by the Canadian government it would have helped if you didn't say "I also realize that many of the old studies done half a century ago have been shown to be invalid in some aspects"
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter