patrick.net

Your an addict chasing a high ! who is to say it will stop with pot ?

what next.. the bigger high after pot doesnt do it for you anymore ...

this was the failure and self destruction of the drug culture we had

couple decades ago...

no Pot never killed due to overdose, but left self destruction anyway.

how about living a clean life... try that ever.. your not going to climb a

mountain stoned out of your head...

thomaswong.1986 says

how about living a clean life... try that ever.. your not going to climb a

mountain stoned out of your head...

We need cheap and legalized drugs because in the future, automation/AI will eliminate many of the jobs, currently out there.

I'd rather see a generation of stoners, sleeping in their parents' or siblings' coaches then in forming roving gangs, robbing those who have the remaining jobs.

It is rather pointless to discuss the harm of mind altering substances with those who insist on using them. You could cite centuries of ongoing harm, and they just won't believe you, until it it too late and it happens to their precious selves.

It's called "denial". People who don't use mind altering substances can see the harm right away, whether it be subtle or extreme.

I would prefer that people who use mind altering substances refer to it as a "calculated risk" in which they feel free to gamble with their own welfare and the welfare of others, and accept the consequences, than claim that they are "harmless", which is absurd on its face.

We should stop labeling. It seems that people die on Fridays at about the same rate as they do on Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday. Labeling seems racist. If that wasn't enough, now we have "brown Thursday"

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/11/28/shopping-on-brown-thursday-scenes-from-around-the-country/

Why does Monday get to be cool? More and more people prefer "Cyber Monday".

But I understand your point, pot never hurt anyone.

thomaswong.1986 says

no Pot never killed due to overdose, but left self destruction anyway.

how about living a clean life...

No, you're thinking of alcohol and legal pharmaceuticals.

Ceffer says

It is rather pointless to discuss the harm of mind altering substances with those who insist on using them.

I've never used any mind altering substances including pot. So discuss it with me.

Ceffer says

You could cite centuries of ongoing harm, and they just won't believe you, until it it too late and it happens to their precious selves.

Please do cite centuries of ongoing harm caused by marijuana. I've looked at every study and found that every anti-marijuana study so far has been so thoroughly discredited on such obvious grounds that any rational person must reach the conclusion that the institutions performing the studies were being deliberately deceptive and fraudulent.

Nonetheless, I'm open to hearing any facts that show that marijuana use is harmful. Please cite those studies that have not been discredited.

Again, this is coming from someone who has never smoked pot in his life and has no intention of doing so even if it were legal. I just don't like the police raping innocent persons on the pretext of "reasonable suspicion" of carrying pot or other drugs.

And, more importantly, prove that marijuana is worse than alcohol and all the prescription drugs that can be legally obtained.

Ritalin is a mind altering drug with severe side effects, yet we feed our children this drug like it's candy.

It seems that the real reasons marijuana is illegal are
1. It cannot be patented by big pharma.
2. It can be grown by anyone thus eliminating the need for big pharma.
3. It competes with other medication that is profitable to big pharma.
4. It allows arrests for political and personal reasons through arbitrary enforcement.
5. It makes the prison industry more profitable.
6. It provides for safe and profitable overtime for corrupt cops.
7. It prevents large minority groups from voting.
8. It allows the government to circumvent the Constitution in the name of "protecting children", in particular, it allows for illegal searches.

just a matter of time before Jessy Jackson and the gang declare BLACK Friday racist.

thomaswong.1986 says

Your an addict chasing a high ! who is to say it will stop with pot ?

what if chasing a high is a disease and needs to be treated (with getting high)?

Dan8267 says

thomaswong.1986 says

no Pot never killed due to overdose, but left self destruction anyway.

how about living a clean life...

No, you're thinking of alcohol and legal pharmaceuticals.

booz, drugs, sex... all can be self destructive addictions.

Dan8267 says

Nonetheless, I'm open to hearing any facts that show that marijuana use is harmful. Please cite those studies that have not been discredited.

Again, this is coming from someone who has never smoked pot in his life and has no intention of doing so even if it were legal. I just don't like the police raping innocent persons on the pretext of "reasonable suspicion" of carrying pot or other drugs.

1970s ... a generation lost chasing the bigger high! ... Fact is I rather be using our tech to finding and dropping napalm bombs on any nation farmers fields growing pot, coke and heroin.

Dan8267 says

1. It cannot be patented by big pharma.

2. It can be grown by anyone thus eliminating the need for big pharma.

3. It competes with other medication that is profitable to big pharma.

4. It allows arrests for political and personal reasons through arbitrary enforcement.

5. It makes the prison industry more profitable.

6. It provides for safe and profitable overtime for corrupt cops.

7. It prevents large minority groups from voting.

8. It allows the government to circumvent the Constitution in the name of "protecting children", in particular, it allows for illegal searches.

completely destroy all cannabis, coco and poppy plants..... completely as you would destroy polio or any disease. make them extinct except for limited highly controlled medical facilities.. you wont have to worry about any increases in prisons and criminals... or changes to personal rights...

but if your so highly addicted and blind, you cant live without it.. your in no position to negotiate.

For you, its just an excuse ...

thomaswrong.1986 says

Your an addict chasing a high ! who is to say it will stop with pot ?

what next.. the bigger high after pot doesnt do it for you anymore ...

this was the failure and self destruction of the drug culture we had

couple decades ago...

no Pot never killed due to overdose, but left self destruction anyway.

how about living a clean life… try that ever.. your not going to climb a

mountain stoned out of your head...

Some posts convince me you are probably about 13 years old.

Then…one like this makes me sure you are well past 80.

In the 70's, cocaine was promoted as being "harmless". A nice buzz that didn't do any harm. Fast Forward.

No, I am not going to waste bandwidth doing research for anybody who will not listen, anyway.

I am pro legalization of pot. However, just because a mind altering substance is "legal" does not mean that intoxication under any circumstances is legal, it just means that society now has the burden of establishing when, where, how and to what extent using and intoxication pass a legal limit. Those same people who were being searched for pot will now be tested to see what their intoxication level is, as with DUI, drunk in public etc. etc. and what the appropriate penalties are.

Habitual use of any mind altering substance, whether legal or illegal, winds up eventually marginalizing the user.

Little Johnny comes up to Dad and says, "Dad, I love hanging out with the pot smokers at school, they are so cool, I am smoking a couple of doobies a day, now." Dad: "Well, son, pot is completely harmless, nobody has ever overdosed from it and nobody can prove that it has ever been implicated in any deaths by accident, ignorance, attention span deficit, operation of cars etc. etc. so go ahead and enjoy!" If you tell son that he shouldn't do that, you obviously believe in the harm potential of smoking pot and hanging around with potheads. Tell me as a pot evangilist that you are telling your young children that smoking pot is OK.

Neurosurgeon waltzes into operating room and tells you(patient) that he just smoked a fattie, he feels great. You wind up having mild paralysis. You want to sue the bastard, and of course, since pot is harmless, you can't introduce that fact to bolster your case. You can't have it both ways. It is either harmful in at least some circumstance, or it isn't

You are an employer who is in charge of operating cranes at the dockyard hauling expensive loads. You have one employee who is an inveterate pot smoker, another who doesn't use anything. Which would you choose to operate your machinery? If you say the guy who doesn't use anything, then you obviously believe that pot use is potentially harmful.

You have been stoking on some really good ganja and your children are in the car with you. You aren't paying attention, and one of them goes through the windshield when you brake and have an accident. Of course, you have a clear conscience, because you know that if hadn't been high, the result would have been exactly the same, just bad karma. Nobody has ever been able to prove a causal relationship between pot smoking and harm, so you and your children are completely safe with your habit.

Nicotine and alcohol are extremely harmful, and legal, and you will find people who will claim that those do no harm, either, and that nobody can prove it, it's all just a conspiracy to kill their buzz.

Rin says

in the future, automation/AI will eliminate many of the jobs, currently out there.

Which totalitarian nightmare are we racing toward Orwell's boot or Huxley's daily dose of soma?
Or some diabolical inversion where the soma is prevalent but illegal and is the main driver of the profitable mass incarceration of unnecessary citizens.

Oh. I guess we are already there.

Robert Sproul says

Some posts convince me you are probably about 13 years old.

Then…one like this makes me sure you are well past 80.

I guess as we approach 80 we see some of those back when we were 13 ruin their
lives... the 70s were exactly that for many as they chased the bigger high! what a waste and useless deaths...

Ceffer says

Habitual use of any mind altering substance, whether legal or illegal, winds up eventually marginalizing the user.

Little Johnny comes up to Dad and says……

So the only reason that the surgeons, and kids, and crane operators, are not stoned now is because it is illegal?
To quote, well, me from another thread; "Addiction rates at the turn of the 20th century, when a 12 year old kid could walk into a drug store and walk out with Laudanum or a cocaine compound, were exactly the same as they are now, after a century of mass incarceration and hysteria."
The catastrophically unjust War on (some) Drugs has accomplished nothing positive.

There is a big difference between stating that drug use is "harmless" and therefore should be legalized and stating that drug use is, indeed, harmful but should be legalized, anyway. If you argue for legalization, you still have moral hazard but have decided the harm from legalization is less than the harms of crime and violence forming around providing the mind altering substances to illegal users.

Legalization merely means that the government is now in league with and regulating the mind altering substance involved. This means that much, but not all, of the illegal activity and violence surrounding the mind altering substance will be reduced. In essence, the government is now the pusher man, but supposedly one with a social conscience, and will become to some extent dependent on tax revenues from the mind altering substance, thus creating a conflict of interest between revenue and the obligation to protect the health and welfare of the population. In Russia, the government would collapse without vodka revenues, thus Russian men continue to be rampantly alcoholic and die early deaths. Criminal elements still ship and sell alcohol and tobacco bypassing the tax man, so there is still criminal activity surrounding those "legal" substances with the contingencies of violence etc.

Also, there may be a "safe zone" where the users are no longer prosecuted for buying and using, even buying from the government, but that does not mean that situational intoxication does not put the user in hot water. Employers still won't have to hire anybody who tests positive, so the user becomes marginalized to fewer potential jobs. It can still be illegal to use in public places, or only designated places are OK for use, again marginalizing the user. I doubt that the government will state that pot use at grammar schools or high schools is OK now, and there will still be criminals who are happy to make a buck selling to them.

Legalization will always be nothing more than partial legalization and will not mean that the criminal and civil authorities will ignore intoxication or it's consequences. It just means you won't be shaken down for possession and using, but if you caused an accident or have a workplace problem, the penalties will be multiplied because of intoxication, you could lose custody of children more readily etc. etc. the fact of intoxication will be forgiven only until you run into some other legal or social obstacle that still will not "forgive" intoxication.

Legalization works well in some ways, not so well in others, it is a devil's bargain. But claiming that mind altering substances are harmless and therefore should be legalized is vacuous and begs the question. Why would you make a claim that is patently false and misleading to justify legalization?

Robert Sproul says

But claiming that mind altering substances are harmless and therefore should be legalized is vacuous and begs the question. Why would you make a claim that is patently false and misleading to justify legalization?

Most mind altering substances ARE harmless to most people. What you believe about drugs is the result of 100 years of demonizing propaganda.
Somewhere well below 5% of people who try them, generally, have some problem with habituation, for some period of time.
The War! on the universal and eternal desire of people to alter their consciousness is VASTLY more harmful to our society than people getting high.

Robert Sproul says

Rin says

in the future, automation/AI will eliminate many of the jobs, currently out there.

Which totalitarian nightmare are we racing toward Orwell's boot or Huxley's daily dose of soma?

Or some diabolical inversion where the soma is prevalent but illegal and is the main driver of the profitable mass incarceration of unnecessary citizens.

Oh. I guess we are already there.

I'm hoping Huxley, the reality of the situation is that the vast amount of humanity, is not necessary in world with is mostly automated by computers/AI.

Thus, keep the masses high on soma and then, the system can continue on.

thomaswong.1986 says

what next.. the bigger high after pot doesnt do it for you anymore ...

this was the failure and self destruction of the drug culture we had

couple decades ago...

no Pot never killed due to overdose, but left self destruction anyway.

how about living a clean life... try that ever.. your not going to climb a

mountain stoned out of your head...

Well with that you might as well ban mountain climbing. The combo of low oxygen and adrenaline are far more addicting. After all why else would one bother with such an expensive and dangerous pastime.

Robert Sproul says

Robert Sproul says

But claiming that mind altering substances are harmless and therefore should be legalized is vacuous and begs the question. Why would you make a claim that is patently false and misleading to justify legalization?

Most mind altering substances ARE harmless to most people. What you believe about drugs is the result of 100 years of demonizing propaganda.

Somewhere well below 5% of people who try them, generally, have some problem with habituation, for some period of time.

The War! on the universal and eternal desire of people to alter their consciousness is VASTLY more harmful to our society than people getting high.

This statement is a combination of assertion fallacies and an undecipherable philosophy.

I am going to check out on that one, man, peace.

New Renter says

Well with that you might as well ban mountain climbing.

Never trust anyone stoned on drugs to do anything.

lothomaswong.1986 says

New Renter says

Well with that you might as well ban mountain climbing.

Never trust anyone stoned on drugs to do anything.

So don't trust anyone who's had a cup of coffee, eaten a doughnut, dodged a bullet , is in love, ... basically don't trust anyone, ever for anything.

OK, got it.

New Renter says

OK, got it.

oh there is a big difference btwn coffee/donuts and some coke head... BIG DIFFERENCE

thomaswong.1986 says

New Renter says

OK, got it.

oh there is a big difference btwn coffee/donuts and some coke head... BIG DIFFERENCE

but you are the one claiming marijuana is a potential slippery slope to hard drugs. I am merely pointing out he same logic can also be used to show a morning coffee, doughnut and a kiss from the wife can lead to meth.

Pot is the choice antidepressant of msnbc groupies as they seek to escape the consequences of the political agenda they've adopted.

SoftShell says

Pot is the choice antidepressant of msnbc groupies as they seek to escape the consequences of the political agenda they've adopted.

Conservatism itself is a drug. The rightwing watches Fox like porn because jerking it to men wearing blond wigs isn't sinful if you pretend they're women.

Of course, cocaine is the drug of choice for bagger congressmen. In fairness, they only got addicted to coke by being a raging alcoholics first. Love the sinner, hate the sin!

Still reminds me that the most vociferous republicans are usually secretly on drugs, and cheating on their wives with underage male prostitutes.

Ceffer says

No, I am not going to waste bandwidth doing research for anybody who will not listen, anyway.

I'm more than willing to listen. I have no vested interest in either side. However, I reserve the right to be skeptical and critical. After all, there have been numerous debunked "studies" that were so flawed it had to be intentional. Lies like marijuana causes heart attacks, kills brain cells, etc.

So, if you have read anything that persuaded you to believe that marijuana is harmful, present it here so that we can determine if it's truthful or not. The argument "there's lots of evidence out there but I'm not going to cite it" is weak indeed.

And yes, I've done a lot of research on this subject as well before coming to my opinion. And after all that research, I could not find one study that wasn't fraudulent to the extent of being comically ridiculous.

Ceffer says

In the 70's, cocaine was promoted as being "harmless". A nice buzz that didn't do any harm. Fast Forward.

I've never heard of cocaine as being promoted as harmless since the 1920s when it was in everything. In any case, marijuana is not cocaine just like Ritalin is not cocaine.

By the way, I have yet to hear a sensible reason why Ritalin is legal but marijuana is not. Can someone explain this? Other than Ritalin is patented and marijuana is not.

Ceffer says

I am pro legalization of pot. However, just because a mind altering substance is "legal" does not mean that intoxication under any circumstances is legal, it just means that society now has the burden of establishing when, where, how and to what extent using and intoxication pass a legal limit.

True, and the exact same burden applies to alcohol, a far more commonly used drug, and all pharmaceuticals. Why treat marijuana differently?

Ceffer says

Little Johnny comes up to Dad and says, "Dad, I love hanging out with the pot smokers at school, they are so cool, I am smoking a couple of doobies a day, now."

The problem you are describing is adolescents valuing the wrong things in role models and friends. This problem has nothing to do with pot. It has existed since there were adolescents and it will exist no matter what, if any, drugs are available. You could remove the word "pot" and your scenario would apply to cigarette smokers just as well.

In any case, the cool kids will always be: the pretty girls and the guys banging the pretty girls. That is what determines coolness. You could reward high academic achievements with "doobies" and the mathletes would still not be considered cool.

Ceffer says

Dad: "Well, son, pot is completely harmless, nobody has ever overdosed from it and nobody can prove that it has ever been implicated in any deaths by accident, ignorance, attention span deficit, operation of cars etc. etc. so go ahead and enjoy!" If you tell son that he shouldn't do that, you obviously believe in the harm potential of smoking pot and hanging around with potheads. Tell me as a pot evangilist that you are telling your young children that smoking pot is OK.

Here you go

http://www.BGh20gu7Fyw

Now granted, the THC was not in the marijuana oil, but THC has been used to treat cancel patients.

As for me, I'm a rationalist, and I have yet to see one piece of evidence or even rational reason to believe that pot is bad for children.

Now, I have never used any mind-altering drugs because I consider the high they provide to be a false high. And I would instill similar values on my children, but I would hardly consider it harmful if I had a child that did smoke pot as long as he or she understood the difference from an earned high from accomplishing something vs an unearned, false high.

As for hanging around potheads, any parent has to judge the company his/her kids keep, but that judgement should be based on the actions of the people, not some stereotype. That's not to say that most "potheads" aren't lazy, stupid asses. Hell, most people are lazy, stupid asses.

Ceffer says

You are an employer who is in charge of operating cranes at the dockyard hauling expensive loads. You have one employee who is an inveterate pot smoker, another who doesn't use anything. Which would you choose to operate your machinery? If you say the guy who doesn't use anything, then you obviously believe that pot use is potentially harmful.

If the person is not high at the time, it does not matter. If you are suggesting that a person who uses pot often must be high all the time, then show the evidence that this is true.

In any case, there are people called "alcoholics" who have to be drunk all the time. Such persons should not be operating heavy machinery or explosives either. But we don't lock people up for drinking beer or wine. At least, not anymore? Why should marijuana be any different at all? If anything, alcohol is far more destructive and deadly.

Ceffer says

You have been stoking on some really good ganja and your children are in the car with you. You aren't paying attention, and one of them goes through the windshield when you brake and have an accident.

There has been more evidence that pot use does not lead to accidents than there is suggesting it does. See previous threads.

However, if we accept your premise than either
1. Pot should still be legal like alcohol, but driving while under the influence of any drug (including legal pharmaceuticals like cold medicine) should be illegal.
2. All things that increase the chance of an accident occurring should be illegal even if the person isn't driving while using them including: alcohol, mobile phones, mobile computers, fast food, newspapers, makeup, loud children.

If we are to be rational about this, once again, marijuana is hardly the worse of those things by any standard.

Ceffer says

Nicotine and alcohol are extremely harmful, and legal, and you will find people who will claim that those do no harm, either, and that nobody can prove it, it's all just a conspiracy to kill their buzz.

Therefore, if anyone claims that X is not harmful, then X must be harmful. For example, I claim that clean air is not harmful, therefore clean air must be harmful. Bob claims that exercise is harmful, therefore no one should exercise.

Do you see the flaw in this logic? It's called Guilt By Association.

New Renter says

lothomaswong.1986 says

New Renter says

Well with that you might as well ban mountain climbing.

Never trust anyone stoned on drugs to do anything.

So don't trust anyone who's had a cup of coffee, eaten a doughnut, dodged a bullet , is in love, ... basically don't trust anyone, ever for anything.

OK, got it.

So very true. Love causes the release of phenylethylamine, dopamine, and oxytocin, highly addictive chemicals and the primary reasons that users of various drugs take those drugs.

In other words, love is a highly addictive chemical high that alters the mind and makes people act stupid, as anyone who's actually been in love knows is true.

SoftShell says

Pot is the choice antidepressant of msnbc groupies as they seek to escape the consequences of the political agenda they've adopted.

Underneath the lies, the truth is often found.

Shrek demonstrates that the real reason conservatives are so anti-marijuana has nothing to do with real effects of the drug, but rather a culture war.

I guess if NASCAR was sponsored by pot, then conservatives would love it. [Pssst... nobody tell the conservatives that hippies drink beer too.]

Dan8267 says

numerous debunked "studies" that were so flawed it had to be intentional

They knew the truth 40 years ago, and a corrupt leadership chose the path of human misery in order to further their political ambitions. As Obama, of course, continues to do.

"On March 22, 1972, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse — chaired by former Pennsylvania Governor Raymond P. Shafer — recommended that Congress amend federal law so that the use and possession of cannabis would no longer be a criminal offense. State legislatures, the Commission added, should do likewise.

“[T]he criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use,” concluded the 13-member Commission, which included nine hand-picked appointees of then-President Richard Nixon. “It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only with the greatest reluctance.

“… Therefore, the Commission recommends … [that the] possession of marijuana for personal use no longer be an offense, [and that the] casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration, no longer be an offense.”

Members of the Commission further acknowledged that marijuana did not meet the criteria of a schedule I controlled substance under federal law, a classification that places cannabis along side heroin as a prohibited substance without any therapeutic value.

Nonetheless Nixon, true to his ‘law-and-order’ roots, shelved the report and its recommendations — announcing instead, “We need, and I use the word ‘all out war,’ on all fronts.” Since Nixon’s rejection of the Shafer report, annual data from the FBI reports that more than 21.5 million Americans have been arrested and criminally prosecuted for violating marijuana laws. Upwards of 80 percent of those arrested were for charged with possession only offenses, not sales or trafficking."

CL says

Still reminds me that the most vociferous republicans are usually secretly on drugs, and cheating on their wives with underage male prostitutes.

To be fair, some of the prostitutes are female.

For every argument made against pot, you can substitute the word sugar, and the statement holds true.

This begs the question, why are all these sugar addicts wasting breath fighting the states war against marijuana, while guzzling the number one gateway drug,toxic sugar by the spoonful?

It seems that its for a variety of reason, the primary reason being that sugar use makes the user stupid. The secondary reason being that the sugar addicts are in denial, and have a healthy fear of their own arguments against marijuana being used against them. If society breaks the current de-evolutionary sugar-high trend, and people can defeat their sugar addictions. Cease the numbing of their brains, caused by sugar consumption. And come to their senses, maybe we can enjoy a better future where humans utilize marijuana for all of its healthful benefits, and treat sugar the way they treat marijuana today, and break the chains of addiction so many suffer from today.

donjumpsuit says

Unlike all other drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, cannabis contains compounds that are nearly chemically and physiologically similar to those found inside our own human brain.

the same is true for the poppy plants to produce morphine/heroin.

there are many good uses for cannabis, poppy, coco leaves which can under strong
control be used to extract beneficial medicine for patients.

But no .. not decriminalization.. and not to be used for 'recreational' purposes...

There is no logical reason why cannabis was criminalized in the first place, except to deny minorities the right to vote from selective enforcement, to feed the for-profit prison system, and to prevent cheap, patent-free pain medication that has no side effects and would kill major profits for the pharmaceutical industry. But there is no socially justifiable reason why cannabis is illegal.

Dan8267 says

But there is no socially justifiable reason why cannabis is illegal.

So by your (twisted) standards ...Sobriety is not enough! so due to evidence provided, you are now against govt regulations...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States#Criminalization_.281900s.29