There's no responsible way to recreationally use Marijuana

[MongGrel]

that's because those people had inferior minds then, as well. I know plenty of people from High School that were daily users in those days. Full-on hippy hair and perpetual glazed eyes, but one you talked with them, you saw something different. They also barely went to their AP calculus and stats classes because these bored them.

They also make absurd amounts of money as financial consultants or engineers or whatever, and they were never childlike in their conversation. The important thing, obviously, is that they were intelligent people then, as they are now.

The only dumb potheads that I have known as adults, were dumb potheads before. Actually, I don't know any of those now, just met a few here and there in passing.

I'd have to agree with you on that one, have only even been around it rarely in the past 30 years myself.

Used to a bit in high school in the 70s & early 80s, one of the few I know these days that does is also one of the most brilliant engineers I've ever worked with.

What you start with to begin IQ wise isn't going to change or increase a lot of the time if you didn't burn one.

 

[TechBoyJK]

I was thinking about that, these people who proclaim that the government is producing bad data and the scientists are in on it with their studies... It reminded me of CT'ers.

The government is producing bad data. Pot's illegal and the Drug War has funded countless studies to look at all the 'bad stuff' about pot, and many of the scientists are fundies that think pot is the devil.

This is commonly known information.

Even Sanjay Gupta talked about this exact point in his 'Weed' documentary. Society is flooded with studies geared to highlight the harmful side of cannabis and they are marketed by groups who have an interest in keeping pot illegal.

What you're admitting is you believe in a false story, and you've yet to realize it.

Here's Sanjay Gupta talking about how HE believed it, and only recently realized its total bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tqg2y3yYR0

 

[Jhhnn]

If you had read my previous response you would know that i don't consider chronic alcolism to be any better. There is a big difference though. Most people use alcohol at parties during their youth but stay sober otherwise, it's not the same with MJ which is completely harmless in every single way if you are to believe the habitual smokers and everyone else who won't admit that it is actually causing problems. It's healthy even, isn't it? This isn't about alcohol vs marijuana, this is about MJ vs not using MJ and if you can't come up with a argument on that subject we have nothing to discuss.

Way to dodge a direct question. Nobody with a lick of sense claims alcohol to be any better, which doesn't answer the question at all. Surely, after 40+ years of widespread use in this country then any brain damage comparable to wet brains & cirrhosis would have been named & recognized. None are known to exist, meaning that the harm is in no way comparable.

The false attribution is typical of propagandists, as well. I never made the claims you allege, nor has anybody else in this discussion.

As a society, we make judgments based on relative harm, which means that other psychoactive substances are fair game. If we can tolerate alcohol & tobacco simply because we cannot effectively prevent their use, we need to find the same tolerance for pot, which has never been demonstrated to have nearly the same negative effects.

Are there cosequences for doing so? Certainly, but nobody knows what they really are, other than not being what you claim. From what we know so far, it seems highly unlikely that those potential harms outweigh the harms of prohibition, another value judgment you seek rather desperately to avoid.

 

[Jhhnn]

that's because those people had inferior minds then, as well. I know plenty of people from High School that were daily users in those days. Full-on hippy hair and perpetual glazed eyes, but one you talked with them, you saw something different. They also barely went to their AP calculus and stats classes because these bored them.

They also make absurd amounts of money as financial consultants or engineers or whatever, and they were never childlike in their conversation. The important thing, obviously, is that they were intelligent people then, as they are now.

The only dumb potheads that I have known as adults, were dumb potheads before. Actually, I don't know any of those now, just met a few here and there in passing.

On a related note-

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/20/fbi-considering-changing-its-no-tolerance-marijuan/

Pot smokers occupy all walks of life in this country & have for a very long time.

 

[alzan]

She'll do for me - especially as an alternative to weed.

I'm more of a Halle Berry as Catwoman man myself.

Actually I'm a Halle Berry man, she can dress and be whatever she likes.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

The government is producing bad data.

I removed the rest including the youtube video. It's not worthy of a proper reply but i sure hope you keep your tinfoil hat wedged in there real fucking tight.

Oh and Sanjay Gupta is a fucking clown, he's got absolutely no scientific backing and is considered to be a sharlatan by anyone who has any scientific background.

 

[ThinClient]

I'm more of a Halle Berry as Catwoman man myself.

Actually I'm a Halle Berry man, she can dress and be whatever she likes.

Too bad she's one of the most anti-white pro-black racists you'll ever meet.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Way to dodge a direct question. Nobody with a lick of sense claims alcohol to be any better, which doesn't answer the question at all. Surely, after 40+ years of widespread use in this country then any brain damage comparable to wet brains & cirrhosis would have been named & recognized. None are known to exist, meaning that the harm is in no way comparable.

The false attribution is typical of propagandists, as well. I never made the claims you allege, nor has anybody else in this discussion.

As a society, we make judgments based on relative harm, which means that other psychoactive substances are fair game. If we can tolerate alcohol & tobacco simply because we cannot effectively prevent their use, we need to find the same tolerance for pot, which has never been demonstrated to have nearly the same negative effects.

Are there cosequences for doing so? Certainly, but nobody knows what they really are, other than not being what you claim. From what we know so far, it seems highly unlikely that those potential harms outweigh the harms of prohibition, another value judgment you seek rather desperately to avoid.

One big fat strawman there.

If you can't argue without making up my points and arguing against what you have made up then my part of this discussion isn't even needed, you can make it all up all on your own to avoid answering anything i said and then proclaim that I dodged a question regarding a statement that i never made.

MJ, it sure as hell have rotted YOUR brain.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Too bad she's one of the most anti-white pro-black racists you'll ever meet.

No she isn't.

 

[Jhhnn]

One big fat strawman there.

If you can't argue without making up my points and arguing against what you have made up then my part of this discussion isn't even needed, you can make it all up all on your own to avoid answering anything i said and then proclaim that I dodged a question regarding a statement that i never made.

MJ, it sure as hell have rotted YOUR brain.

Awww... want some cheese with that whine?

You don't get to draw the boundaries of discussion, certainly not narrow it to a handful of pseudo-scientific "studies" prepared by grant whores while disregarding all other social norms in the process.

Pot smoking has been widespread in this country since the 60's. If there were anything truly horrible about it, we'd know. Detractors of legalization are always trying to come up with something, anything "New" because what they've come up with so far won't let them hold the line of prohibition at all. Not anymore.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Awww... want some cheese with that whine?

You don't get to draw the boundaries of discussion, certainly not narrow it to a handful of pseudo-scientific "studies" prepared by grant whores while disregarding all other social norms in the process.

Pot smoking has been widespread in this country since the 60's. If there were anything truly horrible about it, we'd know. Detractors of legalization are always trying to come up with something, anything "New" because what they've come up with so far won't let them hold the line of prohibition at all. Not anymore.

And yet another strawman.

If you have no argument at all, then why do you even attempt to argue?

Did pot smoking ruin your brain? You poor little thing.

And i can set up the rules for a reasonable discussion, logical arguments CANNOT per definition be based on fallacies, using strawman arguments doesn't mean we have a discussion, it means you are having a discussion with yourself while disregarding what i have said.

That is per definition not a discussion so yeah, i can set the rule that if you want to discuss with me you need to argue for or against the arguments presented rather than making up your own.

"neener nee ne nee nee i can do as i want and make up your points and my own facts because you don't decide over me" is not an intelligent reply but i assume that you have smoked a lot during your teens and thus you have the mind of a child.

 

[MongGrel]

Too bad she's one of the most anti-white pro-black racists you'll ever meet.

Wow really, being married to a white guy and all ?

That and liking Rock and Roll, etc, etc?

How'd you pull that statement out of your ass?

 

[Jhhnn]

And yet another strawman.

If you have no argument at all, then why do you even attempt to argue?

Did pot smoking ruin your brain? You poor little thing.

They'd only be strawman arguments if you were not supporting Rubio's position. Clearly, you are. Check the OP.

They're just different aspects of the topic at hand which more than obliterate any argument you can present. The pros of legalization far outweigh the cons, and nothing you've presented shows that responsible marijuana use is impossible or anywhere near as damaging as other widely used & tolerated intoxicants.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

They'd only be strawman arguments if you were not supporting Rubio's position. Clearly, you are. Check the OP.

They're just different aspects of the topic at hand which more than obliterate any argument you can present. The pros of legalization far outweigh the cons, and nothing you've presented shows that responsible marijuana use is impossible or anywhere near as damaging as other widely used & tolerated intoxicants.

Now you don't even know what a strawman argument is.

Let me explain it to you in the simplest possible terms; when you take my argument, twist it to your own liking and argue against that misrepresentation you are making a strawman argument.

To avoid that you will have to argue against what i said, not what you can misrepresent into what i said.

Do you understand or do i have to type it again real fucking slow for you?

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Wow really, being married to a white guy and all ?

That and liking Rock and Roll, etc, etc?

How'd you pull that statement out of your ass?

I don't think he's very bright, probably smoked too much in his teens.

 

[MongGrel]

I don't think he's very bright, probably smoked too much in his teens.

+1

*snicker*

 

[Jhhnn]

Now you don't even know what a strawman argument is.

Let me explain it to you in the simplest possible terms; when you take my argument, twist it to your own liking and argue against that misrepresentation you are making a strawman argument.

To avoid that you will have to argue against what i said, not what you can misrepresent into what i said.

Do you understand or do i have to type it again real fucking slow for you?

Following the OP, you either support Rubio's position or you don't, regardless of why. Which is it? Pick it & argue for it- don't try to hide behind false argument.

I don't have to argue against what you said- I point out that it's immaterial in the broader context of legalization, the subject Rubio was discussing. Remember him? Remember what he said? What do you think about that?

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Following the OP, you either support Rubio's position or you don't, regardless of why. Which is it? Pick it & argue for it- don't try to hide behind false argument.

I don't have to argue against what you said- I point out that it's immaterial in the broader context of legalization, the subject Rubio was discussing. Remember him? Remember what he said? What do you think about that?

I think that the text that *I* fucking typed should make it clear enough.

Do i need to make a fucking list for you who's arguments i support and who's arguments i do not support for you to be able to understand what i fucking type in ever so fucking clear text?

See, here on this newfangled internet it works like this, i type out the argument and you respond or the other way around, other peoples arguments are unrelated to our texts whether ours are in somewhat agreement with theirs or not.

Now that you have had this whole "how this forum works" explained to you, perhaps you can make a coherent argument without resorting to strawmen or other logical fallacies in the future?


You're welcome.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

To anyone wondering, I'm for legalization of all drugs. I'm a liberal.

I'm not for trying to minimize the information regarding these drugs or dismissing studies that are independent peer reviewed studies only because "the government hates the truth". it's pretty fucking simple, i think you should be able to buy anything, from MJ to bath salts but i think that if you do you should be aware that you lost societal support for your behaviour, the same goes for tobacco and alcohol, if you choose to use it, you pay your way for what you are doing to yourself in every instance. And no "i drive so well when i'm high or when i'm drunk or when i'm doing coke" one chance is what you get, if you drive high or drunk you will be going to jail for at least a year the first time for attempted volountary homicide. See it's ok if you want to smoke it up or drink it up with your friends, i couldn't care less but when the shit hits the fan and you affect others with your use, you lost all your privileges.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think that the text that *I* fucking typed should make it clear enough.

What it does make clear is that you are, at best, concern trolling, finally saying you support legalization after dragging forth obscure "studies" allegedly showing its harm while attempting to falsely & negatively characterize pot users at the same time.

To anyone wondering, I'm for legalization of all drugs. I'm a liberal.

That's not necessarily a Liberal position at all. We don't have to legalize poison (like bath salts) to legalize cannabis. I do think that if pot were legal then few would use bath salts at all.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

What it does make clear is that you are, at best, concern trolling, finally saying you support legalization after dragging forth obscure "studies" allegedly showing its harm while attempting to falsely & negatively characterize pot users at the same time.



That's not necessarily a Liberal position at all. We don't have to legalize poison (like bath salts) to legalize cannabis. I do think that if pot were legal then few would use bath salts at all.

First of all, these studies are well known and peer reviewed, in no way are they "obscure" to anyone who has had any will to actually research the topic, they are the best funded and most well done studies that exist on the topic and also the ones that are used the most. I think you mistake "the democratic party position" for the Liberal position, i am a true liberal and not some pansy for some party. i don't care what any party says, i go with the liberal position and it does proclaim that prohibiting the use is anti-liberal, not demanding you pay the consequences for using them is also anti-liberal. I'm a liberal so i am for letting them all free and letting people deal with the consequences of their own actions. If Cannabis was legal then everyone would just look to the next one above it for the excitement because cannabis wouldn't be an exciting illegal drug any more. This is basic psychology 101, thank you for your attendance.

 

[MrPickins]

If Cannabis was legal then everyone would just look to the next one above it for the excitement because cannabis wouldn't be an exciting illegal drug any more. This is basic psychology 101, thank you for your attendance.

You're saying that legalization of marijuana leads to increased use of harder drugs?

I'm sorry, but you're gonna have to back that up with some evidence. Shouldn't be too hard to find it, considering it's legal in CO and WA.

 

[shira]

She'll do for me - especially as an alternative to weed.

Lynda Carter is now pushing 63, so you might want to re-think that decision. I'll go with a more contemporary model:

 

[momeNt]

He was (is/but probably left for political reasons) a mormon. Opposed to mind altering substances, even caffeine. So I can respect his position personally for him and his family, but to extend that to the world around him is sickening.

 

[Jhhnn]

First of all, these studies are well known and peer reviewed, in no way are they "obscure" to anyone who has had any will to actually research the topic, they are the best funded and most well done studies that exist on the topic and also the ones that are used the most. I think you mistake "the democratic party position" for the Liberal position, i am a true liberal and not some pansy for some party. i don't care what any party says, i go with the liberal position and it does proclaim that prohibiting the use is anti-liberal, not demanding you pay the consequences for using them is also anti-liberal. I'm a liberal so i am for letting them all free and letting people deal with the consequences of their own actions. If Cannabis was legal then everyone would just look to the next one above it for the excitement because cannabis wouldn't be an exciting illegal drug any more. This is basic psychology 101, thank you for your attendance.

You don't get to use your own definitions of words, characterizing yourself as "Liberal" or standing up strawmen as to what you claim Liberals believe, either.

Nor toss in naked assertion as fact, label it as psychology 101 rather than bullshit 101. Having cannabis be illegal does not buffer humanity from harder drugs, nor is that alone responsible for its continued popularity.