War on Drugs

Demiurge said:
As far as I know, marijuana is not physically addictive in the way that heroin or cocaine are. Its addictive property is that you may like its intoxication and want to keep doing it. If this destroys your life, you're a fucking weakling and should really get lost anyway.

I actually think Silver Incubus is right here about what pot does to the brain.

It damages my brain to see so much whining. I'm usually the first one to point out a person being in a particular context, being limited by facticity, etc., but it's getting to be too much. Virtually everything is bad for you if you have the self-discipline of a 3 year old.

It's really weird to see Christians who're the first to tell us to blame ourselves and only ourselves for what we've done because we have full moral responsibility say "you can't be exposed to this that or the other thing because you're not strong enough to be responsible."
Click to expand...

I'm a Christian and have been trying to make the point that of all the possible vices there are available, marijuana is the least destructive.

No, it is not physically addictive, and is only mentally addictive in weaker people who think they need it daily to get through. For me, its what I do on the weekends as opposed to drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes.

It's always the uninformed, or worse yet, the ones that LISTEN to the government, that believe its more harmful than legal tobacco and alcohol.
 
ZoMb!M@N said:
Attention NIF, Devil's Steed, etc.... the above represents a well thought out post with intelligent points being made. Try to emulate this style in your own posts instead of spewing your thoughts with no facts to reinforce them.
Click to expand...
Please, please, PLEASE read who posted what. I didn't post any of what you quoted and then called ignorant. Unless you want to show me another instance where I stated something as being "fact" and failed to provide supporting evidence?

All I've posted in this thread since my last post (regarding the impossibility of proving that anything is "solely" responsible for cancer, a theory you incidentally agreed with) was this:

"The risk and expense people will go to so they can inhale fumes from burning plant matter has never ceased to amaze me...".

That statement is three parts observation and one part opinion. (The observations speak for themselves; I don't see how you can argue with them, or why I would need to provide proof when everything I stated is common knowledge. The part that's just my opinion should be pretty clear due to my use of the phrase "amaze me.")

Observation: there is risk involved with smoking weed
Observation: there is cost involved with smoking weed
Observation: weed is a plant

Opinion: that people go to the trouble they do to get high is amazing to me

I don't see where it would have been appropriate for me to cite a source or provide further evidence.
 
I was trying to make fun of Silent Song, but I guess I failed miserably. It's funny that I'm morally responsible for all of my actions despite whatever external factors have shaped the type-facts about my character, I am to place all blame on the individual. Yet, this individual is so very weak that when exposed to a substance that's not even physically addictive, he'll crumble and wind up like a "Requiem for a Dream" character. Forget about drugs, your will is too feeble to withstand their magical ability to enslave you. However, don't go easy on the guilt because everything you do wrong is your fault and yours' only and you have the strength to be otherwise.
 
Good critique - however, I doubt he will reply to it. Speaking of which, Silent Song, I've made plenty of points in my last few posts - why don't you reply to them? Do you agree with them?
 
:lol: Zombieman, as they say, the proof is in the cards. When I see people around me getting cancer from it and becoming fucking morons due to its use, I can tell what it does. I don't need a fucking scientific study to tell me this, just like I don't need one to tell me that putting a pistol into my mouth and pulling the trigger will most likely kill me. You can show as many studies as you want saying it doesn't happen, but it wouldn't be too hard to find a counter study. The results will depend on who's funding it.
 
When I see the sun rise in the morning and set at night, I can tell you that the sun goes around the earth. I don't need a fucking scientific study to tell me this, just like I don't need one to tell me that the earth is spherical. After all, that would mean that people in China are walking upside down! How preposterous!

Your personal preference about smoking marijuana is irrelevant to its legalization. Tetrahydrocannabinol does not cause cancer. It is nothing more than a neurotransmitter. Inhaling partially combusted particles is equally harmful from paper, marijuana, or a forest fire. If you are worried about cancer, I recommend outlawing excessive sun-tanning and anything that creates holes in the ozone layer of our atmosphere. Nobody is denying that smoking marijuana is a health hazard, but so are plenty of substances that are legal - moreso than marijuana. Also, anecdotal evidence is useless when considering the legalization of something. Compare the ratio of drunk driving accidents and high driving accidents. If you want marijuana prohibited on the basis of health/public safety, you'd have to get rid of alcohol first, as it is far more harmful to both.

EDIT:
I have a friend who's pretty near the cancer stage at this point, who's smoked one hell of alot of weed. She's smoked some cigarettes, too, but not near as high of an amount, and certainly not a cancerous amount. What does this leave to account for most of the degeneration? The pot. That's only one example.
Click to expand...

A couple of questions/issues:
1. What does being "pretty near the cancer stage" mean? Are her cells getting ready to become cancerous? Does she have benign tumors? Last I checked, you either had cancer, or you didn't, and there was little way to predict it.
2. Smoked cigarettes, but "not a cancerous amount?" What is the exact number of cigarettes that's a cancerous amount?
3. Oh, of course the pot! Since you, with your expert knowledge of human physiology and cancer, declared that the cigarettes were not a cancerous amount, it has to be pot! It cannot be genetics! It cannot be second-hand smoke at an early age! It cannot be that she had a job that exposed her to carcinogenic chemicals! Your case is weak.
 
ZoMb!M@N said:
It is difficult to have an intelligent conversation when only one of us has an objective opinion.
Click to expand...
you're right.

ZoMb!M@N said:
I will no longer be responding to your posts. You are a child, with child-like responses.
Click to expand...
good to know that you've finally withdrawn from this discussion, all you've added thus far is insults and sweeping patronizing of myself and others. a child? how do you know? did you look up my age? and even if i were a "child" as you so claim, what stake does age hold with this discussion? are you going to tell me you're right automatically simply because you are older (if you even are)?

further:

1. it is a foolish man who believes everything the government and media says, but more foolish is he who ignores them, when even false information can bring truth to light. not listening doesn't make you any smarter.

2. marijuana is the "least harmful vice" you say? does that not still make it a vice? the lesser of two evils is still evil. i question your faith...
 
Iridium said:
Good critique - however, I doubt he will reply to it. Speaking of which, Silent Song, I've made plenty of points in my last few posts - why don't you reply to them? Do you agree with them?
Click to expand...
i have had a series of late days at work so haven't been able to respond. but generally no, i don't agree with your posts on this subject.

edit: #156 i have no objections

edit: demiurge, no matter what people do to you or your surroundings, the element of choice is always yours and yours alone.
 
Oh, I don't really care - as long as you eventually respond to my posts, I'll be satisfied. Now, explain exactly what choice is. Let's say I have a choice between, Froot Loops, and Frosted Flakes. The choice is all mine, right? Let's say that a few weeks ago I had each kind and Frosted Flakes tasted better. It activated more neuroreceptors for pleasure. So which one am I going to take? Assuming of course I'm not considering free will and paradoxes concerning it at the time, I am going to take Frosted Flakes. You're going to say "BUT THE CHOICE WAS ALL YOURS!" Well, think of it this way: a multi-variable equation could begin with any slope and continue in any direction (if you consider only a part of the whole equation), but when you compute every variable, it will eventually spit out a perfect, single curve, as opposed to the million that were originally possible.

Also, if we have the choice, why would you vote to deny me the choice to smoke marijuana legally?
 
Heh, isn't that still my choice? Also, by preaching its prohibition, you seem to be preaching for the denial of my marijuana use.
 
Iridium said:
When I see the sun rise in the morning and set at night, I can tell you that the sun goes around the earth. I don't need a fucking scientific study to tell me this, just like I don't need one to tell me that the earth is spherical. After all, that would mean that people in China are walking upside down! How preposterous!

Your personal preference about smoking marijuana is irrelevant to its legalization. Tetrahydrocannabinol does not cause cancer. It is nothing more than a neurotransmitter. Inhaling partially combusted particles is equally harmful from paper, marijuana, or a forest fire. If you are worried about cancer, I recommend outlawing excessive sun-tanning and anything that creates holes in the ozone layer of our atmosphere. Nobody is denying that smoking marijuana is a health hazard, but so are plenty of substances that are legal - moreso than marijuana. Also, anecdotal evidence is useless when considering the legalization of something. Compare the ratio of drunk driving accidents and high driving accidents. If you want marijuana prohibited on the basis of health/public safety, you'd have to get rid of alcohol first, as it is far more harmful to both.

EDIT:

A couple of questions/issues:
1. What does being "pretty near the cancer stage" mean? Are her cells getting ready to become cancerous? Does she have benign tumors? Last I checked, you either had cancer, or you didn't, and there was little way to predict it.
2. Smoked cigarettes, but "not a cancerous amount?" What is the exact number of cigarettes that's a cancerous amount?
3. Oh, of course the pot! Since you, with your expert knowledge of human physiology and cancer, declared that the cigarettes were not a cancerous amount, it has to be pot! It cannot be genetics! It cannot be second-hand smoke at an early age! It cannot be that she had a job that exposed her to carcinogenic chemicals! Your case is weak.
Click to expand...

1. Her lungs are blackened on the inside, and she's been told by doctors if she continues to smoke whe will have cancer soon.

2. I say it's not a cancerous amount, because it's a much more rare activity than the pot smoking. Far less has been used, much less than the typical amount (i.e. years of frequent smoking) needed to cause cancer by cigarettes, although it varies from person to person.

3. There hasn't been a history of second hand smoke at an early age, nor a large amount of cigarette intake, yet there has been a much larger amount of marijuana intake, and this has resulted. It's not that hard to figure out what's going on.
 
Okay, regardless, your case is still weak, primarily because you present solely anecdotal evidence. Once again, nobody is denying that (smoking) marijuana is harmful, but you would be more consistent if you wanted to ban smoking altogether, and allow the use of marijuana extracts in food (which is completely harmless).
 
"Once again, nobody is denying that (smoking) marijuana is harmful, but you would be more consistent if you wanted to ban smoking altogether, and allow the use of marijuana extracts in food (which is completely harmless)."

But doesn't the act of getting High kill brain cells? You'll be saving your lungs, but you're still causing damage. And this isn't to suggest that you shouldn't eat MJ brownies or whatever. I'm just saying that MJ, in any form, is still harmful.
 
THC does not kill brain cells - read that post by Silver Incubus describing its affects a few pages back.
 
I wish that paragraph had a source to it. Not saying it's not true, but I find it hard to believe that that "high" feeling doesn't cause some kind of damage.
 
10293847 said:
I wish that paragraph had a source to it. Not saying it's not true, but I find it hard to believe that that "high" feeling doesn't cause some kind of damage.
Click to expand...

It's true that it doesn't kill brain cells. There was a credible scientific article posted elsewhere stating as much, but I'm too lazy to find it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Silver Incubus
War on ____
Replies
97
Views
6K
The Philosopher
razoredge
R
C
war on drugs...
Replies
20
Views
3K
Bar
Loren Littlejohn
L
Vimana
  • Poll Poll
Would it be better if drugs were legalized?
Replies
325
Views
20K
The Philosopher
razoredge
R
S
Republicans
Replies
18
Views
994
The Philosopher
mengeloid
M
D
Metal, socially unacceptable for its values?
Replies
55
Views
5K
The Philosopher
waif
W
Top Bottom