 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » Ricky Williams Retires
Unclescam777
July 30, 2004 at 05:08AM View BBCode
You say it caused thousands of deaths, but do you have any proof? Do you have any hardcore scientific evidence supporting your claim? It seems like you are either A. just making up stories based on your opinion, or B. Believing what you've heard
arodtoo
http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2004/07/23/76278.php
and thus the point was proven
Marijuana is addictive and can lead to a host of health, social and behavioral problems at a crucial time in a young personââ?¬â?¢s life. Teens using marijuana are also more likely to take risks, such as driving while high or riding with someone who is driving under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs. Research shows that smoking pot affects concentration, perception, coordination and reaction time, many of the skills required for safe driving ââ?¬â?? and these effects can last up to 24 hours.
38,000 high school seniors in the U.S. crashed after driving under the influence of marijuana
July 30, 2004 at 05:20AM View BBCode
http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/03-26-2003-news.htmhttp://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2004/07/23/76278.php
and thus the point was proven
Marijuana is addictive and can lead to a host of health, social and behavioral problems at a crucial time in a young personââ?¬â?¢s life. Teens using marijuana are also more likely to take risks, such as driving while high or riding with someone who is driving under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs. Research shows that smoking pot affects concentration, perception, coordination and reaction time, many of the skills required for safe driving ââ?¬â?? and these effects can last up to 24 hours.
38,000 high school seniors in the U.S. crashed after driving under the influence of marijuana
Unclescam777
Nope. Even the almighty government has gone on record admitting that there has never been a death caused by marijuana. It simply can't kill you. You have a better chance of being trampled by an elephant in Antarctica than you do of dying from weed.
July 30, 2004 at 05:21AM View BBCode
no, you don't understand. Alcohol will destroy YOUR liver. Directly means you consume it, it eventually kills you. Marijuana will never damage YOU physically. The only possible way it hurts you is lung damage, but smoking anything will cause lung damage. However, a vaporizor will avoid the need to inhale smoke, thus rendering marijuana physically harmless.i am wiling to bet there are documented cases of people getting high and killilng at least 1 person
Nope. Even the almighty government has gone on record admitting that there has never been a death caused by marijuana. It simply can't kill you. You have a better chance of being trampled by an elephant in Antarctica than you do of dying from weed.
arodtoo
July 30, 2004 at 05:25AM View BBCode
they can't prove that you got live cancer from drinking either, maybe all the cases have been flukes and everyone was genetically dispositioned to it. maybe all those peopel were destined to get it sooner or later, maybe it was just egged on by alcohol, or maybe it was a coincidence, i mean people who don't drink can have bad livers. anyways, i am going out of town to go vacationing for the weekend, and iwth the way off topic is, this page will be buried under 40 pages, so i guess the debate ends
Unclescam777
That gave me a small chuckle. I'd really like to know where some of these people are getting their weed from. They've been holding out on potsmokers! Perhaps they genetically produced some sort of superweed?
High school seniors crash everytime the wind changes direction. They are far from an ideal test subject. Besides, I don't know many activists who believe children should smoke marijuana anyway. We're fighting for responsible adults, not some kid who is too concerned about looking cool to realize his head is up his ass.
July 30, 2004 at 05:26AM View BBCode
Here's a general tip when researching Arodtoo, if it ends in .com it's not a verifyable source. Try looking up organizations and scientific articles.and these effects can last up to 24 hours
That gave me a small chuckle. I'd really like to know where some of these people are getting their weed from. They've been holding out on potsmokers! Perhaps they genetically produced some sort of superweed?
38,000 high school seniors in the U.S. crashed after driving under the influence of marijuana
High school seniors crash everytime the wind changes direction. They are far from an ideal test subject. Besides, I don't know many activists who believe children should smoke marijuana anyway. We're fighting for responsible adults, not some kid who is too concerned about looking cool to realize his head is up his ass.
Unclescam777
You know what, you are right. Hundreds of thousands of hepatitis cases have all been flukes and your few marijuana incidents are completely true. I've been foolish to believe doctors over some .com website. I'll try harder next time, I promise
July 30, 2004 at 05:28AM View BBCode
maybe all those peopel were destined to get it sooner or later, maybe it was just egged on by alcohol, or maybe it was a coincidence
You know what, you are right. Hundreds of thousands of hepatitis cases have all been flukes and your few marijuana incidents are completely true. I've been foolish to believe doctors over some .com website. I'll try harder next time, I promise
Duff77
If I had my choice, I'd rather ride with a stoned person than a drunk person, but I'd rather not ride with either. But the fact that driving stoned is a bad idea doesn't, by itself, suggest that marijuana should be illegal. But it's a problem, I admit, because there's no reliable test to confirm if you're stoned AT THE TIME, since marijuana stays in your bloodstream for so long. A person who smoked a week ago and is perfectly sober looks, by the test, as guilty as someone who did it half an hour ago.
So fine...if you wreck your car, and the drug is in your bloodstream, you're guilty of driving under the influence. That's just one of the sacrifices potheads are going to have to make if they ever want to see it legalized. Now we're not going to throw people in jail for every fender bender, but if you're driving erratically or something, and it's in your bloodstream, too bad--there's no way to know when you smoked it (unless, of course, you reek).
July 30, 2004 at 07:15AM View BBCode
Okay, myself personally, I would not ride shotgun with somebody who was stoned out of his mind. And I wouldn't drive under the influence of any drug, marijuana included. Marijuana causes you to zone out, which can slow your reaction time. So you're slamming into the back of a Hummer while you're mesmierized by the electronic sign that's telling you an accident is up ahead.If I had my choice, I'd rather ride with a stoned person than a drunk person, but I'd rather not ride with either. But the fact that driving stoned is a bad idea doesn't, by itself, suggest that marijuana should be illegal. But it's a problem, I admit, because there's no reliable test to confirm if you're stoned AT THE TIME, since marijuana stays in your bloodstream for so long. A person who smoked a week ago and is perfectly sober looks, by the test, as guilty as someone who did it half an hour ago.
So fine...if you wreck your car, and the drug is in your bloodstream, you're guilty of driving under the influence. That's just one of the sacrifices potheads are going to have to make if they ever want to see it legalized. Now we're not going to throw people in jail for every fender bender, but if you're driving erratically or something, and it's in your bloodstream, too bad--there's no way to know when you smoked it (unless, of course, you reek).
ME
July 30, 2004 at 11:49AM View BBCode
Different kinds of marijuana. From all that I've heard, marijuana itself isn't that bad. This is the kind you grow yourself and that most people in the '60s smoked. But a lot of today's street marijuana has things added to it by drug lords to make it much more addictive and potent.
Unclescam777
As for drug lords, they never tamper with their product. That's bad economically for them. Someties a low level street dealer has been known to either add coke or pcp in order to make poor quality weed stronger. Well coke is visable, especially to an experienced smoker. The white of THC crystals looks a lot different than the white of coke. And pcp is rarely added because it's so damn expensive, and dealers are in it to make money, not lose it. Again, an experienced smoker would know because pcp has different effects than reguar pot, and it's not addictive your first time(no drug is). Some people think that drug dealers will lace their weed but just from an economic standpoint they won't, because hard drugs cost too most money to not sell on their own. Plus there's always a business for marijuana, A LOT of people smoke it, ranging from high school kids to grandparents. The only people who could ever fall fo laced weed are inexperienced smokers, and they shouldn't be buying from a dealer anyway. But that argument is just another reason why it should be legal, to take it out of the hands of dealers. By keeping it illegal we're creating a black market and making many dealers very rich, plus newbies may not know what they are getting.
There's a lot going on in the world right now regarding pot, especially in America. The past year has been unreal in the amount of progress both sides have made. For the conservatives there's a proposal to give anybody 10 years MMS(1st offense) if they sell to a minor. But the activists have made more progress. Oakland, CA has a proposal on the November ballot that would make them the first US city to legalize and regulate marijuana. Ann Arbor and Las Vegas both have things on the November ballot to virtually rid themselves of pot laws. As many know, in Alaska you can legally have pot in your house because it's your right to privacy. Well now they want to make it fully legal and regulated. Even the concervatives are saying enough is enough. The National Review(a conservative journal) released an article calling for the end of marijuana prohibition. They're still conservative so they hate the drug but they're looking at the War on Drugs as the worst financial decision America has ever made. Over $15 Billion a year is wasted trying to stop pot, and it's still as easy as walking down the street to get for 95% of Americans. America lost the war against weed, and everybody knows it. Recent polls have shown that up to 50% of the nation(including nonsmokers) would like to see it regulated, just to keep it out of the hands of children and take away the dealers. A dealer doesn't check ID, a store clerk can and will. People are finally waking up and beginning to realize the horror that this war is causing, and whether they like pot or not that just want it over because it's a dead cause.
July 30, 2004 at 12:45PM View BBCode
Somewhat, kinda....not really. Right now the DEA is claiming that pot is 20-30 times more potent than it was during the 60's, but at an average THC content of 8.4% that would mean that the people who smoked in the 60's were getting no effects, which obviously isn't true and common sense will tell you that. The reality is potency has only risen about 2%, from 6 to 8(on average), but all that shows is better technique in growing. In the end it doesn't make a difference at all because your body naturally metabolizes and builds a tolerence to THC, meaning there's a certain point where you can't get any more high.As for drug lords, they never tamper with their product. That's bad economically for them. Someties a low level street dealer has been known to either add coke or pcp in order to make poor quality weed stronger. Well coke is visable, especially to an experienced smoker. The white of THC crystals looks a lot different than the white of coke. And pcp is rarely added because it's so damn expensive, and dealers are in it to make money, not lose it. Again, an experienced smoker would know because pcp has different effects than reguar pot, and it's not addictive your first time(no drug is). Some people think that drug dealers will lace their weed but just from an economic standpoint they won't, because hard drugs cost too most money to not sell on their own. Plus there's always a business for marijuana, A LOT of people smoke it, ranging from high school kids to grandparents. The only people who could ever fall fo laced weed are inexperienced smokers, and they shouldn't be buying from a dealer anyway. But that argument is just another reason why it should be legal, to take it out of the hands of dealers. By keeping it illegal we're creating a black market and making many dealers very rich, plus newbies may not know what they are getting.
There's a lot going on in the world right now regarding pot, especially in America. The past year has been unreal in the amount of progress both sides have made. For the conservatives there's a proposal to give anybody 10 years MMS(1st offense) if they sell to a minor. But the activists have made more progress. Oakland, CA has a proposal on the November ballot that would make them the first US city to legalize and regulate marijuana. Ann Arbor and Las Vegas both have things on the November ballot to virtually rid themselves of pot laws. As many know, in Alaska you can legally have pot in your house because it's your right to privacy. Well now they want to make it fully legal and regulated. Even the concervatives are saying enough is enough. The National Review(a conservative journal) released an article calling for the end of marijuana prohibition. They're still conservative so they hate the drug but they're looking at the War on Drugs as the worst financial decision America has ever made. Over $15 Billion a year is wasted trying to stop pot, and it's still as easy as walking down the street to get for 95% of Americans. America lost the war against weed, and everybody knows it. Recent polls have shown that up to 50% of the nation(including nonsmokers) would like to see it regulated, just to keep it out of the hands of children and take away the dealers. A dealer doesn't check ID, a store clerk can and will. People are finally waking up and beginning to realize the horror that this war is causing, and whether they like pot or not that just want it over because it's a dead cause.
Meathead44
Ex: A man is driving while high, he doesn't have complete control and he drifts a bit into the shoulder, loses control of his car and plows into a tree. Well, the cause of death was his car's engine being slammed back into his face.
Let's not pretend it doesn'y cause deaths. To do so is the opposite evil of those that claim it kills 100's of thousands.
Marijuana is no different than Alcohol. Now, to say one should be legal because the other is, is being a bit simplistic. There are laws governing alcohol use. There are things set up to check people who are in violation. Until we can come up with similar tests for Marijuana, it can't be legal. It is a public health risk. Now, whether you want to be one of the ostriches that say it's a killer or one of the ostriches that say it is completely harmless or somewhere in between, I think you'd have to a gree that it needs to be regulated in some way.
Don't get me started on cigarettes. There is absolutely no reason for these things to be legal. They cause cancer. Period. They absolutely kill people. Not just the people that decide to smoke them, but also people that are around them. The cigarette itself contains nicotine, an addictive substance who's only job in a cigarette is to get you addicted to it. Can anyone here say that when the smoked their first cigarette that it was a great feeling and enjoyable experience? Probably not too many. Someone who has been smoking for a while probably enjoys it because it feeds his addiction. Any smoker that thinks it isn't completely harmful and it shouldn't be illegal, go buy a pack for your kids today then and get them started.
My dad was a smoker for about 40 years. 3 years ago he was diagnosed with lung cancer. He can have surgery to remove the lung. He started radiation therapy before the surgery. He called it a worse hell than his first marriage and said that if he gets cured and gets cancer again that it wins cause he won't go through that again. A month before the operation, he was in the bathroom and started coughing (he did that alot with the radiation). He coughed up a little blood, then a little more. Then a big cough that spit out blood like he threw it up. He then yelled to my mother. When my mother got to the bathroom, blood was spewing out of his mouth. The strongest man I've ever known died, bleeding to death, in my mother's arms pleeding for her help.
With what we know today, people that smokes cigarettes are the dumbest F-ing people on this planet.
[Edited on 7-30-2004 by Meathead44]
July 30, 2004 at 01:41PM View BBCode
First off, the ZERO recorded deaths is VERY misleading. As is all the other numbers listed. Those numbers are "directly caused death" numbers. Nobody has ever over-dosed on marijuana or had an allergic reaction resulting in death. However, I think anybody that is thinking clearly would admit that it has been the contributing factor in many deaths.Ex: A man is driving while high, he doesn't have complete control and he drifts a bit into the shoulder, loses control of his car and plows into a tree. Well, the cause of death was his car's engine being slammed back into his face.
Let's not pretend it doesn'y cause deaths. To do so is the opposite evil of those that claim it kills 100's of thousands.
Marijuana is no different than Alcohol. Now, to say one should be legal because the other is, is being a bit simplistic. There are laws governing alcohol use. There are things set up to check people who are in violation. Until we can come up with similar tests for Marijuana, it can't be legal. It is a public health risk. Now, whether you want to be one of the ostriches that say it's a killer or one of the ostriches that say it is completely harmless or somewhere in between, I think you'd have to a gree that it needs to be regulated in some way.
Don't get me started on cigarettes. There is absolutely no reason for these things to be legal. They cause cancer. Period. They absolutely kill people. Not just the people that decide to smoke them, but also people that are around them. The cigarette itself contains nicotine, an addictive substance who's only job in a cigarette is to get you addicted to it. Can anyone here say that when the smoked their first cigarette that it was a great feeling and enjoyable experience? Probably not too many. Someone who has been smoking for a while probably enjoys it because it feeds his addiction. Any smoker that thinks it isn't completely harmful and it shouldn't be illegal, go buy a pack for your kids today then and get them started.
My dad was a smoker for about 40 years. 3 years ago he was diagnosed with lung cancer. He can have surgery to remove the lung. He started radiation therapy before the surgery. He called it a worse hell than his first marriage and said that if he gets cured and gets cancer again that it wins cause he won't go through that again. A month before the operation, he was in the bathroom and started coughing (he did that alot with the radiation). He coughed up a little blood, then a little more. Then a big cough that spit out blood like he threw it up. He then yelled to my mother. When my mother got to the bathroom, blood was spewing out of his mouth. The strongest man I've ever known died, bleeding to death, in my mother's arms pleeding for her help.
With what we know today, people that smokes cigarettes are the dumbest F-ing people on this planet.
[Edited on 7-30-2004 by Meathead44]
Unclescam777
I threw up my first time. I really don't understand why people smoke, hell I've been a smoker since 13. But it's been a few weeks since I had a cigarettes so I'm proud of myself, despite the fact that I STILL crave them. Sometimes I wonder if this addiction will ever go away.
As for weed, well complete legalization is foolish, just like keeping it illegal is. For one it does not belong in the hands of children because they simply aren't responsible users, I know this from my high school days. And nobody should be driving or working on it. I'm an activist for regulation, the same as alcohol. Obviously there needs to be a way to determine if a person is actually high, because of now there isn't a way. But we'll never develop a proper test as long as we refuse to even attempt to develop one. Recent studies have shown that saliva could be the key to this type of test, since it's only detectable on saliva for a few hours. We'll see where it goes.
July 30, 2004 at 02:06PM View BBCode
Can anyone here say that when the smoked their first cigarette that it was a great feeling and enjoyable experience?
I threw up my first time. I really don't understand why people smoke, hell I've been a smoker since 13. But it's been a few weeks since I had a cigarettes so I'm proud of myself, despite the fact that I STILL crave them. Sometimes I wonder if this addiction will ever go away.
As for weed, well complete legalization is foolish, just like keeping it illegal is. For one it does not belong in the hands of children because they simply aren't responsible users, I know this from my high school days. And nobody should be driving or working on it. I'm an activist for regulation, the same as alcohol. Obviously there needs to be a way to determine if a person is actually high, because of now there isn't a way. But we'll never develop a proper test as long as we refuse to even attempt to develop one. Recent studies have shown that saliva could be the key to this type of test, since it's only detectable on saliva for a few hours. We'll see where it goes.
sycophantman
July 30, 2004 at 02:11PM View BBCode
Sadly, the addiction NEVER completely goes away, you'll get old still remembering how enjoyable that cigarette can be, but it will get MUCH easier to ignore...
Unclescam777
July 30, 2004 at 04:38PM View BBCode
We should just end the debate now by legalizing Soma and bringing on The Brave New World. That's what everyone wants anyway, a world full of mindless conformists who follow the leader.
Duff77
It's tough for me to say that cigarettes should be illegal, only because with proper laws, which we're close to having, the only harm you do it to yourself--and I tend to think if you're stupid enough to harm yourself, so be it. But actually being a smoker, and actually understanding how incredibly powerful addiction is, I have to say it's high time somebody banned these stupid things. What's really sad about it is that while nicotine isn't good for you, it's not the thing that leads to hacking up your own lungs. Inhaling smoke (duh) is what does that. I've heard (I don't know if I believe this) that people in the cigarette industry have come up with ways to make less harmful cigarettes, but the cigarette makers have consistently blocked every effort, apparently not wanting to admit the common knowledge that their product is deadly.
Like I said, I don't know if I believe that, because I'd have to think if someone could actually make a safer cigarette they'd put the other manufactuers out of business in a heartbeat. If nothing else, the entire cigarette industry should be handed over to the government, EVERYONE should be carded, and the penalty for selling/giving cigarettes to kids should be 20 years in prison with no parole. It's time to phase cigarettes out completely.
As far as marijuana goes, meathead's arguments are reasonable. If marijuana is ever legalized it needs to be heavily regulated, perhaps even more so than alcohol. Actually, I don't think alcohol is regulated nearly enough. But I believe that as both are mind-altering substances, both are capable of causing people to do stupid things that get them maimed or killed. Which one is more likely is really beside the point. But the best evidence for me is that there are places in the world where it's legal and/or tolerated, and last I checked no society is flying apart at the seems because people are getting stoned.
And Meathead, I respect your opinion, but I'd rather not be called one of the stupidest f---ing people on earth. I'm not. I WAS a fairly stupid 14 year old with a lot of "problems" who thought sucking on a butt would ease my "torment," and I am continuing to pay the price for that stupidity. But you just don't know what addiction is until you've been there. I think when you're in withdrawl, it becomes almost a matter of instinct. I mean you're suffering, and you KNOW how to end it--you run down to 7-11 just as easily as you pull your hand away from a hot stove. It's that powerful.
All the more reason I wouldn't be opposed to a total ban. If you can't get it, well--then you won't. There would be a black market, but most smokers would be through the withdrawl before they figured out where to find it.
July 30, 2004 at 11:13PM View BBCode
The first cigarette I was actually brave enough to inhale (probably my third or fourth) gave me an INCREDIBLE high for about two hours. But that particular rush fades by about the end of your first pack, and after that it is nothing more than a maintenance addiction. It's true that if you go awhile without having one, especially if you're stressing at work or something, a cigarette can be very nice... But I'd have to say that most of the "calming" properties of cigarettes have to do with the habit itself. It's the routine of it that's relaxing, more so than the cigarette itself.It's tough for me to say that cigarettes should be illegal, only because with proper laws, which we're close to having, the only harm you do it to yourself--and I tend to think if you're stupid enough to harm yourself, so be it. But actually being a smoker, and actually understanding how incredibly powerful addiction is, I have to say it's high time somebody banned these stupid things. What's really sad about it is that while nicotine isn't good for you, it's not the thing that leads to hacking up your own lungs. Inhaling smoke (duh) is what does that. I've heard (I don't know if I believe this) that people in the cigarette industry have come up with ways to make less harmful cigarettes, but the cigarette makers have consistently blocked every effort, apparently not wanting to admit the common knowledge that their product is deadly.
Like I said, I don't know if I believe that, because I'd have to think if someone could actually make a safer cigarette they'd put the other manufactuers out of business in a heartbeat. If nothing else, the entire cigarette industry should be handed over to the government, EVERYONE should be carded, and the penalty for selling/giving cigarettes to kids should be 20 years in prison with no parole. It's time to phase cigarettes out completely.
As far as marijuana goes, meathead's arguments are reasonable. If marijuana is ever legalized it needs to be heavily regulated, perhaps even more so than alcohol. Actually, I don't think alcohol is regulated nearly enough. But I believe that as both are mind-altering substances, both are capable of causing people to do stupid things that get them maimed or killed. Which one is more likely is really beside the point. But the best evidence for me is that there are places in the world where it's legal and/or tolerated, and last I checked no society is flying apart at the seems because people are getting stoned.
And Meathead, I respect your opinion, but I'd rather not be called one of the stupidest f---ing people on earth. I'm not. I WAS a fairly stupid 14 year old with a lot of "problems" who thought sucking on a butt would ease my "torment," and I am continuing to pay the price for that stupidity. But you just don't know what addiction is until you've been there. I think when you're in withdrawl, it becomes almost a matter of instinct. I mean you're suffering, and you KNOW how to end it--you run down to 7-11 just as easily as you pull your hand away from a hot stove. It's that powerful.
All the more reason I wouldn't be opposed to a total ban. If you can't get it, well--then you won't. There would be a black market, but most smokers would be through the withdrawl before they figured out where to find it.
skierdude44
I think that if an adult goes out to buy a pack of cigs for the very first time today they are dumb (and maybe that is what Meathead meant). But maybe people who havent been exposed to cigarette smoke and its effects dont understand how horrible they really are. I've been around it my entire life, but I have never smoked a cigarette and you couldnt pay me enough to smoke one. I wouldnt smoke a cigarette for anything in the world.
July 31, 2004 at 12:50AM View BBCode
I agree that people who smoke arent the dumbest people on the planet, although some are but thats another story. A lot of people start in their teen years due to various reasons, usually peer pressure and wanting to feel cool. I agree that cigarettes should be illegal because they are almost pure poison and are addictive as hell. Everyone I know who smokes hates it, but they have a terrible time stopping. My aunt is always telling me and my cousins not to smoke, all the while she has a cigarette stuffed in her mouth. It makes her look like a big hypocrite but her whole point is that she hates it but cant stop. One of my Uncle's has suffered 2 heart attacks and is lucky to be alive and Im going to my other uncle's funeral on Thursday because he was killed by a massive heart attack caused by smoking cigarettes. I hope that atleast his death will be something that will make those in my family that smoke (there are many of them) quit. Cigarettes ruin lives. Its not bad enough that my uncle is dead, but his 4 year old son and 2 year old daughter will have to grow up without a father and their life style will change dramatically because my uncle was a lawyer and my aunt doesnt work. She doesnt know how to do anything, so while Im sure they have a nice life insurance policy and they still have alot of money left from him they will still have to make some major changes.I think that if an adult goes out to buy a pack of cigs for the very first time today they are dumb (and maybe that is what Meathead meant). But maybe people who havent been exposed to cigarette smoke and its effects dont understand how horrible they really are. I've been around it my entire life, but I have never smoked a cigarette and you couldnt pay me enough to smoke one. I wouldnt smoke a cigarette for anything in the world.
Duff77
July 31, 2004 at 01:43AM View BBCode
When you're 14 and socially maladjusted, you just don't care. You know it's incredibly stupid, but what would youth be if we actually paid attention to things like that? It's the nature of the beast. That's why 99% of people who start smoking do it before they're old enough to have a brain.
Unclescam777
Have you ever heard the quote "Youth is wasted on the young"? Young people have the most potential yet they have the most ignorance and 99% of them piss away their potential. It takes life experience to realize the decisions you should have made but by the time you realize it's already too late. I'm not just just talking about cigarettes, I'm talking about everything. Teenagers really do piss away a lot, and the sad part is it's not even their fault. They are just so naive towards life and the world. Imagine where the human race would be if a 40 year old mind existed in an 18 year old's body. It's funny how reality is, humans are always one step behind because they can only learn by making mistakes.
It makes me wonder why we haven't been blessed with 2 lives instead of one, because there isn't a single person on this planet who wouldn't do better their second time around.
July 31, 2004 at 02:08AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Duff77
When you're 14 and socially maladjusted, you just don't care. You know it's incredibly stupid, but what would youth be if we actually paid attention to things like that? It's the nature of the beast. That's why 99% of people who start smoking do it before they're old enough to have a brain.
Have you ever heard the quote "Youth is wasted on the young"? Young people have the most potential yet they have the most ignorance and 99% of them piss away their potential. It takes life experience to realize the decisions you should have made but by the time you realize it's already too late. I'm not just just talking about cigarettes, I'm talking about everything. Teenagers really do piss away a lot, and the sad part is it's not even their fault. They are just so naive towards life and the world. Imagine where the human race would be if a 40 year old mind existed in an 18 year old's body. It's funny how reality is, humans are always one step behind because they can only learn by making mistakes.
It makes me wonder why we haven't been blessed with 2 lives instead of one, because there isn't a single person on this planet who wouldn't do better their second time around.
sycophantman
July 31, 2004 at 02:16AM View BBCode
It's humanities charm, endlessly stumbling with the best of intentions...
Duff77
If you could go back to 14 with the brain you have now, you wouldn't live the same life--obviously, no one would (especially a smoker who can't quit). But if doing that meant wiping out what happened the first time, I wouldn't go for it.
Who I am now has a lot to do with the idiotic things I did back then, and while I still live with the burdens I placed on myself at the time, I generally like who I am, and tampering with anything that got me here is out of the question.
My point being, they're really not mistakes if you grow from them, and if you gain something from them that you can use to help yourself and others.
July 31, 2004 at 04:24AM View BBCode
I've pondered this question often and resolved it as such:If you could go back to 14 with the brain you have now, you wouldn't live the same life--obviously, no one would (especially a smoker who can't quit). But if doing that meant wiping out what happened the first time, I wouldn't go for it.
Who I am now has a lot to do with the idiotic things I did back then, and while I still live with the burdens I placed on myself at the time, I generally like who I am, and tampering with anything that got me here is out of the question.
My point being, they're really not mistakes if you grow from them, and if you gain something from them that you can use to help yourself and others.
Benne
David Powelson, M.D., at one time advocated legalizing the use of marijuana. Later, after more evidence was available, he wrote: "I now believe that marijuana is the most dangerous drug we must contend with: 1.Its early use is beguiling. The user is g iven an illusion of feeling good; he cannot sense the deterioration of his mental and physiological processes. 2. Its continued use leads to delusional thinking. After one to three years of continuous use, the pathological forms of thinking begin to take over the thought process."
Dr. Robert L. DuPont, former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in the United States, who in the past was quoted as minimizing danger from marijuana, more recently stated: "The real issue is the health danger posed by this epidemic (of marijuana use by the younger generation), danger of at least two kinds. One is the effects of the intoxication, ranging from the hazardous impact on driving to caring less about everything. The other area is purely physical. Here the concerns range from the regular occurence of chronic bronchitis among marijuana users to the very real possibilities of harmful hormonal effects, effects on the immune system and possibly even cancer."
SCIENCE DIGEST: "Regular marijuana puffing may, in the long run, widen the gaps between nerve endings in the brain that are necessary for such vital functions as memory, emotion and behavior. In order for nerves to perform their functions, theymust communicate between themselves."
As for comparing marijuana and alcohol, alcohol is a food and is metabolized by the body to provide energy; the end products are disposed of by the body. However, a psychopharmacologist said: "Marijuana is a very potent drug, and the biggest mistake we make is comparing it to alcohol." "Molecule for molecule, THC (in marijuana) is 10,000 times stronger than alcohol in its ability to produce mild intoxication...THC is removed slowly from the body, and many months are required to recover from its effects."
I would discuss cigarettes, but I have to go to work.
July 31, 2004 at 05:42PM View BBCode
I just have to throw in my two cents on marijuana. I found some examples of reputable scientists:David Powelson, M.D., at one time advocated legalizing the use of marijuana. Later, after more evidence was available, he wrote: "I now believe that marijuana is the most dangerous drug we must contend with: 1.Its early use is beguiling. The user is g iven an illusion of feeling good; he cannot sense the deterioration of his mental and physiological processes. 2. Its continued use leads to delusional thinking. After one to three years of continuous use, the pathological forms of thinking begin to take over the thought process."
Dr. Robert L. DuPont, former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in the United States, who in the past was quoted as minimizing danger from marijuana, more recently stated: "The real issue is the health danger posed by this epidemic (of marijuana use by the younger generation), danger of at least two kinds. One is the effects of the intoxication, ranging from the hazardous impact on driving to caring less about everything. The other area is purely physical. Here the concerns range from the regular occurence of chronic bronchitis among marijuana users to the very real possibilities of harmful hormonal effects, effects on the immune system and possibly even cancer."
SCIENCE DIGEST: "Regular marijuana puffing may, in the long run, widen the gaps between nerve endings in the brain that are necessary for such vital functions as memory, emotion and behavior. In order for nerves to perform their functions, theymust communicate between themselves."
As for comparing marijuana and alcohol, alcohol is a food and is metabolized by the body to provide energy; the end products are disposed of by the body. However, a psychopharmacologist said: "Marijuana is a very potent drug, and the biggest mistake we make is comparing it to alcohol." "Molecule for molecule, THC (in marijuana) is 10,000 times stronger than alcohol in its ability to produce mild intoxication...THC is removed slowly from the body, and many months are required to recover from its effects."
I would discuss cigarettes, but I have to go to work.
Unclescam777
No it's not, alcohol is a poison. Anyway everything you typed is bullshit and I'll give my counterargument when I come back from the movies.
July 31, 2004 at 07:41PM View BBCode
alcohol is a food and is metabolized by the body to provide energy
No it's not, alcohol is a poison. Anyway everything you typed is bullshit and I'll give my counterargument when I come back from the movies.
Benne
*looks for thread started by Ignite*
July 31, 2004 at 09:46PM View BBCode
I'm sorry you feel that way. I just quoted a couple scientists and gave you my humble opinion. We both feel strongly about our views and I really don't feel like debating about drugs anyway. I don't smoke, I don't drink heavily, and I don't plan to anytime soon. So I will now go back to my weird self.*looks for thread started by Ignite*
Meathead44
Or you can fight the addiction and stop smoking or never start.
You can rationalize about the addiction you created and how hard it is to quit, but as a being of superior intelligence, it takes stupidity to not be able to overpower your physical addiction. I don't mean to be so harsh because I do understand the difficulty. I also understand those that started as an ignorant teenager or before we really had the evidence of health issues. I have several friends including people here that smoke and I have to say it "You are being a complete idiot by still smoking." If I had 100 friends that smoked, I'd tell them all this. If 99 decided not to be my friend anymore and 1 decided to re-examine it and stop smoking, then I'll say goodbye to the 99 friends.
July 31, 2004 at 09:51PM View BBCode
By smoking cigarettes, you are killing yourself. You are at high risk of having an extremely painful, debilitating, and expensive death. Your loved ones will have to watch you waste away while spending life savings and then they will have to bury you. Your wife will be a widow and your kids will be fatherless. You will never see your grandchildren grow up. If you smoke around your loved ones, you might be killing them as well. Think about the impact. Does feeding your addiction pull you so strongly that you would do this to your loved ones?Or you can fight the addiction and stop smoking or never start.
You can rationalize about the addiction you created and how hard it is to quit, but as a being of superior intelligence, it takes stupidity to not be able to overpower your physical addiction. I don't mean to be so harsh because I do understand the difficulty. I also understand those that started as an ignorant teenager or before we really had the evidence of health issues. I have several friends including people here that smoke and I have to say it "You are being a complete idiot by still smoking." If I had 100 friends that smoked, I'd tell them all this. If 99 decided not to be my friend anymore and 1 decided to re-examine it and stop smoking, then I'll say goodbye to the 99 friends.
Unclescam777
You forgot cite this beauty so I will. Executive Health Report, October 1977, p.8. 27 years ago Benne? There have been thousands of reports published on Marijuana since then. More importantly, in science a credible source must be recent, no more than a few years old. The reasoning? The field of science is constantly evolving, including more accurate tests and updated information. No subject stays dormant in science, there is always newer and better research being conducted. If scientists remained content with old research 4th graders would still be taught that the sun revolves around the Earth.
Cited: Montreal Gazette, March 22, 1979, p.9.
Cited: March 1981, p.104.
Cited: Executive Health Report, October 1977, p.3
Now a few things of my own. I find it funny that The Federal Government has recently been accused of breaking the law by prohibiting scientists from conducting further research on marijuana. Perhaps they are scared of the public learning the truth? After all, if this mean old plant is so bad then there's no harm in a little research right? If it's so bad then the research should just prove the government's point, right?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040721/ap_on_he_me/medical_marijuana
Here's something published July, 2, 2003...a bit more recent than 1977:
San Diego, CA: Smoking marijuana long-term has little-to-no impact on neurocognitive performance in adults, according to findings published last week in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society.
Researchers at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine analyzed data from 15 previously published, controlled studies regarding the impact of long-term, recreational marijuana use on neurocognitive performance including simple reaction time, verbal/language skills, executive function, motor skills, learning, and recognition, among other measurements.
"The results of our meta-analytic study failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated," authors determined.
Anyway I could go on and on but I won't. You screwed up your research once, but that was just a simple mistake. I'll give you another shot at correcting your mistake. If you truely believe marijuana is forged in the fires of Hell then please don't hesitate to post a more reliable source than your doctors and scientists who posted their research at the end of Reefer Madness, which was a period of time where research was purposely altered in order to scare the public away from marijuana. Funny thing is, Nixon's own 1972 report proves to be the most accurate report printed today, despite the time period. Even funnier, since Nixon was a huge anti-drug president, was that his administration's report disproves all negatives rumors and states many positive facts about pot. EVEN FUNNIER is the fact that Nixon never read the report himself until after he resigned.
July 31, 2004 at 10:25PM View BBCode
mmm, perhaps the funniest thing about all anti-marijuana arguments is the fact that they come from people who have little to no experience with the plant. You can spout off nonsense all day but the fact remains there are many Engineers, Lawyers, Doctors, Writers, Teachers, Judges, Chemists, and other highly regarded professionals that smoke marijuana, yet they run circles around many nonsmokers in terms of intelligence. Benne, you statements are amusing, especially considering THEY ARE ALL FROM THE SAME SOURCE!("Reasoning from the Scriptures", Published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania in 1989). A general rule of indisputible research is you never ever draw a conclusion from the same source. Anyway, on to your statements:David Powelson, M.D., at one time advocated legalizing the use of marijuana. Later, after more evidence was available, he wrote: "I now believe that marijuana is the most dangerous drug we must contend with: 1.Its early use is beguiling. The user is g iven an illusion of feeling good; he cannot sense the deterioration of his mental and physiological processes. 2. Its continued use leads to delusional thinking. After one to three years of continuous use, the pathological forms of thinking begin to take over the thought process."
You forgot cite this beauty so I will. Executive Health Report, October 1977, p.8. 27 years ago Benne? There have been thousands of reports published on Marijuana since then. More importantly, in science a credible source must be recent, no more than a few years old. The reasoning? The field of science is constantly evolving, including more accurate tests and updated information. No subject stays dormant in science, there is always newer and better research being conducted. If scientists remained content with old research 4th graders would still be taught that the sun revolves around the Earth.
Dr. Robert L. DuPont, former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in the United States, who in the past was quoted as minimizing danger from marijuana, more recently stated: "The real issue is the health danger posed by this epidemic (of marijuana use by the younger generation), danger of at least two kinds. One is the effects of the intoxication, ranging from the hazardous impact on driving to caring less about everything. The other area is purely physical. Here the concerns range from the regular occurence of chronic bronchitis among marijuana users to the very real possibilities of harmful hormonal effects, effects on the immune system and possibly even cancer."
Cited: Montreal Gazette, March 22, 1979, p.9.
SCIENCE DIGEST: "Regular marijuana puffing may, in the long run, widen the gaps between nerve endings in the brain that are necessary for such vital functions as memory, emotion and behavior. In order for nerves to perform their functions, theymust communicate between themselves."
Cited: March 1981, p.104.
As for comparing marijuana and alcohol, alcohol is a food and is metabolized by the body to provide energy; the end products are disposed of by the body. However, a psychopharmacologist said: "Marijuana is a very potent drug, and the biggest mistake we make is comparing it to alcohol." "Molecule for molecule, THC (in marijuana) is 10,000 times stronger than alcohol in its ability to produce mild intoxication...THC is removed slowly from the body, and many months are required to recover from its effects."
Cited: Executive Health Report, October 1977, p.3
Now a few things of my own. I find it funny that The Federal Government has recently been accused of breaking the law by prohibiting scientists from conducting further research on marijuana. Perhaps they are scared of the public learning the truth? After all, if this mean old plant is so bad then there's no harm in a little research right? If it's so bad then the research should just prove the government's point, right?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040721/ap_on_he_me/medical_marijuana
Here's something published July, 2, 2003...a bit more recent than 1977:
San Diego, CA: Smoking marijuana long-term has little-to-no impact on neurocognitive performance in adults, according to findings published last week in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society.
Researchers at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine analyzed data from 15 previously published, controlled studies regarding the impact of long-term, recreational marijuana use on neurocognitive performance including simple reaction time, verbal/language skills, executive function, motor skills, learning, and recognition, among other measurements.
"The results of our meta-analytic study failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated," authors determined.
Anyway I could go on and on but I won't. You screwed up your research once, but that was just a simple mistake. I'll give you another shot at correcting your mistake. If you truely believe marijuana is forged in the fires of Hell then please don't hesitate to post a more reliable source than your doctors and scientists who posted their research at the end of Reefer Madness, which was a period of time where research was purposely altered in order to scare the public away from marijuana. Funny thing is, Nixon's own 1972 report proves to be the most accurate report printed today, despite the time period. Even funnier, since Nixon was a huge anti-drug president, was that his administration's report disproves all negatives rumors and states many positive facts about pot. EVEN FUNNIER is the fact that Nixon never read the report himself until after he resigned.
Benne
Truce?
July 31, 2004 at 10:38PM View BBCode
I think you made your point very clearly. I knew better than to get involved in this argument. I had a shitty day at work and like I said I'm in no mood to debate. I can't change your viewpoint and you can't change mine, so getting into a heated argument will accomplish nothing. I thought we were friends:(:(:(:(Truce?