Bad for you, but not for everyone else. Also, those tobacco ad, stated that smoking is bad only if your under 18. WTF!!!
Go here for the truth.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_faq1.shtml
Bad for you, but not for everyone else. Also, those tobacco ad, stated that smoking is bad only if your under 18. WTF!!!
Go here for the truth.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_faq1.shtml
You're really grasping here attempting to say that caffeine and tobacco and fruit roll-ups and Mentos or whatever else are gateway drugs.
There are two reasons that marijuana is a gateway drug. First and foremost is the criminality involved with using/obtaining marijuana. If you had to obtain alcohol through illegal means because alcohol was forced into deviant and criminal cultures of 'illicit' substances/behavior, then alcohol would be a greater gateway drug simply because you're forced to get it from unsavory characters and cultures which are far more inclined to engage in and embrace any number of other illegal activities, most likely would be the use/sale/procurement of other 'illicit' substances, which you are invariably exposed or introduced to.
Second is the mind-altering nature of marijuana which can not be said of caffeine or Mentos or tobacco. Those looking to 'alter' their state of mind, for whatever reason, are naturally going to entertain other mind-altering experiences.
That leaves us with alcohol as a mind-altering substance. Much like tobacco, the attraction to alcohol for all people, initially, is not its mind-altering properties, but its popular social appeal. You don't decide to try alcohol to get a buzz, you decide to try it because its a popular social 'lubricant', in a manner of speaking, and you learn of its mind-altering properties secondarily. This distinction is subtle but important.
Which underscores what sets alcohol apart from marijuana, that being, nobody is attracted to marijuana, initially, because of its popular social appeal, because it has no popular social appeal. People are attracted to marijuana exclusively because of their curious interest in a mind-altering experience. As already mentioned, those looking to 'alter' their state of mind, for whatever reason, are naturally going to entertain other mind-altering experiences.
Edit: If you're going to argue against the conclusions drawn from credible peer-reviewed research, at least come up with something a bit more credible and substantial than "what a load of bullsh-t!" for an argument.
That is just not true. I garauntee you if polled pot smokers a vast majority would say they first smoked up in a social setting, just like with alcohol. And if people weren't attracted to alcohol exclusively for its mind-altering effects there would be no alcoholics.
I support the legalization of marijuana for one reason and one reason only, I pay too many taxes.
In your attempt to find the rare exception to the rule I asserted because you wanted to disagree with me some how, you entirely missed the point.
It isn't the 'social setting' I'm referring to. It is the basic attraction within the social setting. Sure, pot heads do socialize with other pot heads, in their pursuit of smoking pot.
It was probably an exaggeration for me to say that 'nobody' is inclined to try alcohol for the specific purpose of satiating the curiosity or desire to have a mind altering experience. The vast majority do not.
In regards to the bolded part: If a person is going to seek mind altering drugs, they are going to seek mind altering drugs. If weed was not in the picture, would they still seek mind altering drugs? By your theory, yes. So, if pot never existed, would those that want to alter their perception of reality through chemical means still do so? Yes. Take the example of someone who is going to eat junk food until they are fat. Who cares whether they start on Twinkies or Ho-Ho's? Either way, they will seek out junk food. So, why ban Twinkies?
One thing I noted about your arguements: Legalizing pot leaves both of them pointless. You would no longer have to visit your corner drugstore, but rather the 7-11 at the top of your street. Secondly, who ever is looking to get high on a drug, is going to anyway.
FWIW, I've never smoked pot, but I support legalization, just so we can tax the **** out of potheads. Since the USSR couldnt stop the drug trade (and, remember, the USSR made a funny face and said "what the hell are you talking about?" every time someone mentioned "human rights" or the "rights of an individual", never mind that personal privacy, court-approved wiretapping, and the right not to be pulled behind a wall and shot were totally unheard of in the USSR), do we really want to try? It is a) expensive, and, b) pointless.
What a load. The criminality of marijuana has nothing to do with it. Look at the countries that legalize marijuana, that blows your whole first premise. To say that criminality is gateway behavior is BS. Does someone speeding down the freeway make speeding gateway behavior to reckless driving? You could say yes, but at what percentage of speeders becoming reckless drivers make a certain behavior, gateway behavior.
As far as mood-altering substances are concerned, and I'm using mood instead of mind purposely, tobacco, alcohol and caffeine all fit into this category. And I don't know where you grew up but alcohol is used not because it's popular, but because it is the popular mood-altering substance. What the hell do you think "social lubricant" means? You could easily fit marijuana into this category if the roles they play in society were reversed. And I've met more "unsavory" characters in a drinking environment than I ever have in a so-called drug environment and most of the drinkers I know have done or continue to do some kind of other drugs.
People try drugs, any kind of drug including alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine, because they are curious as to their effects. Whether or not they continue to use these drugs is a whole different issue and gateway behavior has nothing to do with it. Please point me to this wonderful peer-reviewed research you seem so enamored with because it is a load of bullsh!t. Actually, don't bother because I don't care. Go on believing what you will and I'll believe what I've lived through in real life.
edit: and btw, what the hell is your peer-reviewed research? Reefer Madness? Do you think people go to the seedy parts of town looking for the guy in a trenchcoat hanging out on the street corner selling dime bags. No, they don't. Most people buy marijuana from one of their friends, not some junkie gutter trash, from one of their own friends.
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
I'd love to live in a world run by you people. Drugs are good, everyone should be able to do drugs. People should have the freedom to get high.
Idiots.
Look at how many people can't even handle a little alcohol w/o crashing their car and killing innocent people. I had a friend who's sister was killed by a drunk driver and I can't imaging what the world would be like if people could get high and start driving. A freedom is something that you need to ensure that you can live a productive life. The right to bear arms was put there so that we could always protect ourselves from our own government's oppression, if necessary. It is necessary. You do NOT have the right to get high. Anyone who believes that should move to a country where it is legal so you can get high all you want and leave me alone. I've seen many people's lives go down the drain because of drugs (even just weed), so don't tell me that it's totally harmless and not addictive and you don't get dependant on it. It messes with your head and that's why it's dangerous. Anyone who can't see this... I pity you.
You are so supid. I seriously hope you don't have kids or you never do have kids because I don't want to have to give all my money to them in the form of welfare so they can afford their next hit.
Idiots.
Look at how many people can't even handle a little alcohol w/o crashing their car and killing innocent people. I had a friend who's sister was killed by a drunk driver and I can't imaging what the world would be like if people could get high and start driving. A freedom is something that you need to ensure that you can live a productive life. The right to bear arms was put there so that we could always protect ourselves from our own government's oppression, if necessary. It is necessary. You do NOT have the right to get high. Anyone who believes that should move to a country where it is legal so you can get high all you want and leave me alone. I've seen many people's lives go down the drain because of drugs (even just weed), so don't tell me that it's totally harmless and not addictive and you don't get dependant on it. It messes with your head and that's why it's dangerous. Anyone who can't see this... I pity you.
Oh! That makes it all ok then. Arnold Swartzerejfjlkoii used steroids so I guess that's ok too. Robert Downey Jr used all sorts of drugs and he's a popular movie star!!! Maybe I should start doing some hard drugs and I'll become a movie star!
You are so supid. I seriously hope you don't have kids or you never do have kids because I don't want to have to give all my money to them in the form of welfare so they can afford their next hit.
this debate will never end....however the usa bann on pot being lifted is inevitable........email me in 10 years if it is still banned.
I agree... I think either pot should be legalized cause it's hardly harmful.. possibly make an age rule for pot, that would work the same with underagers... or do the same with alcohol that is currently now with pot. (illegal)
that would go over well..
Originally posted by: Yield
I agree... I think either pot should be legalized cause it's hardly harmful.. possibly make an age rule for pot, that would work the same with underagers... or do the same with alcohol that is currently now with pot. (illegal)
that would go over well..
Oh, it WENT over really well...
WOW, haven't heard a quote like that since the 60's
Take a guess what adults with kids vote, not young pot heads. I know people that use to smoke weed and even some that free based (sp?) and they wanted drugs legal when they did them, now that they have kids its a whole new game.
You will learn this when you grow up, and by grow up I don't mean get older.
Same reason just kissing another guy on the lips means you're gay... Just cuz you haven't porked each other yet, doesn't mean it's not bad....
Who's Ru? Ru can keep dreaming as long as he wants for all I care. Haha.
You know, I was thinking, nothing justified me calling you a i love you. Then again, nothing justified you calling that other member a troll. So, I guess if you can call somebody a troll based on their thoughts towards marijuana usage, I can call you a i love you based on yours.
So what's up Nik man? You keepin' it real in the field yo?
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter