Marijuana

If what you're telling me is that pumping smoke into your lungs doesn't cause cancer and emphysema, you're full of shit.

[anthonyjfuchs]

Swk6 wrote

...there big argument...

Come on, brother; there are three versions of the word, and only two that don't include punctuation. Here's the difference:

PIERS: "What's the worst part about visiting the States?"
SIMON: "Their government won't let them smoke marijuana."
PIERS: "I wonder when they're going to do something about that."
SIMON: "Hopefully soon. It's tough spending any stretch of time there."

[Philboid Studge]

Swk6 wrote

Did you just know that off the top of your head or did you do a little quick research??? Seriously. lol

well maybe a little ....

You could argue against gateway bullshit with Amsterdam's example. They've had the laxest ganja laws on god's green earth for over 25 years and the usage rates for harder drugs hasn't budged. (Last I checked, coke and heroin usage was about the same in Holland at in the US; but far fewer high schoolers use ganja in Amsterdam than Merklinland. Go figure)

[DrunkMonkey]

Hanevet wrote

If what you're telling me is that pumping smoke into your lungs doesn't cause cancer and emphysema, you're full of shit.

Well, it has been tested. Apparently reality is full of shit.

[calpurnpiso]

hanevet wrote:

"Anyways, if your life sucks so much you need drugs to feel better, you fail and you must get off my planet."

We evolved mutate primates, as ALL living creatures, need drugs to feel better. Drugs are found in foods. As a primate with a better more improved computer we begun to use entheogens ( god within) over 40,000 years ago. Those were natural drugs found in nature its psychotropic properties unknown in those days.

All religious books came about because of ingestion of those substances. Drugs were the only way the supernatural/divine and innerself could be experienced. Today there are pious folks that talk to god without the use of drugs. They are called schizophrenics and the deeply religious.

Natural Drugs like peyotl, amanita, atropa belladona, opium etc were transformed by these retards. In ancient times the poppy was CHEWED and ingested just like Coca leafs. It was a natural medicine and a way to commune with the gods. Alexander soldiers and other armies used it to numb the feet during long walks and dull the pain during battles. Death was not felt. So, they NEEDED drugs!

The Poppy begun to be SMOKED after the arrival of Conquistadors to the orient introducing Cannabis & TOBBACCO which begun to be mixed with the juice of this flower & smoked. The profits were immense so Christ-psychosis infected England who thought the world was hers, begun a drug trafficking business with great profits. They duped China as they had other countries countries to buy this product. The Chinese were so addicted that the Empress Dowager send her minister to see pothead HRM Victoria telling her government to stop importing the drug. The result was the Opium Wars (1838). China lost Hong-kong, as the result. This along Roman history, the Crusades, Rape of Americas ought to be TAUGHT in elementary school, to awaken the stupid ignorant American youth whose young mind has been corrupted with Christian despicable own version of history, deception & immorality.

The Christ-psychotics in their ignorance of these God Summoning drugs, transformed relatively benign natural entheogens ( poppy, coca etc) which had been used by the ancients for over 6000 years into very addictive chemicals ( i,e morphine, heroine, cocaine, crack etc etc...)

This is what happens when retarded ignorant christ-psychotic retards are in control of nations. Drugs are not the danger, religious-psychosis inducing neurological turpitude is.

[psychodiva]

in my work I see quite a few young people who have been tipped over the edge into psychosis through use of cannabis- I see it as simlar to an allergy - some of them have a genetic or familial predisposition to psychosis that may not have ocurred if it wasn't for their cannabis use- a few do not - they are just more 'sensitive' to its effects than most people- trouble is - you can never tell who will be more sensitive - the evidence is basically still out on whether there is a direct correlation or causative factor - I wouldn't support legalisation because of what I have seen it do.

cannabis psychosis

and another

[Rhinoqulous]

Psychodiva, have you seen an actual causal relation between cannabis use and psychosis, or are there correlations between the two? Also, if a small segment of a population does have a negative reaction to a drug, does that mean it should be banned from use by all?

[psychodiva]

Rhinoqulous wrote

Psychodiva, have you seen an actual causal relation between cannabis use and psychosis, or are there correlations between the two? Also, if a small segment of a population does have a negative reaction to a drug, does that mean it should be banned from use by all?

no thats not what I said- and I did say there have been no causal relationships found although there is a slight - not significant- correlation - it is basically anecdotal and experiential evidence- unfortunately thats how most research in psychiatry starts out and a lot of reasearchis just unethical to do - we cannot force people to take cannabis just to see if it affects them with me it is just a gut thing- I've seen what it can do- admittedly I don't see the ones where it doesn't cause psychosis.

I would like to see a better health promotion prgramme about it- laying all the available facts out that will enable an informed choice - and I would never ever agree with anyone under the age of 16 using the damn stuff.

[Waddlie]

Rhinoqulous wrote

Also, if a small segment of a population does have a negative reaction to a drug, does that mean it should be banned from use by all?

Too right, Rhino - let's ban those peanuts!

DrunkMonkey wrote

Well, it has been tested. Apparently reality is full of shit.

Link to the actual evidence or shut up. Smoke damages the lungs, whether it be smoke from burning tobacco, burning marijuana, burning rubber, burning wood, anything. It is CO2. It is carbon. Carbon builds up. Carbon clogs the oxygen-absorbing holes in the lungs. Period. It doesn't matter what you're smoking as long as you're smoking, you're killing your lungs.

[anthonyjfuchs]

And your lungs can regenerate. Smokers who quit have nearly full lung restoration within about five years.

So how about we legalize, say, one blunt per week. That way, smokers have time for their lungs to heal.

Or how about we let people do what they want to their own bodies? Inform them of the risks, and then butt the fuck out? It's an un-American notion, I know, but we do it with booze and cigs, don't we?

[Waddlie]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

...we do it with booze and cigs, don't we?

Hmmm. Of all the countries I've been to, the US is the most conservative when it comes to alcohol...

[JU Mike]

The Awoken One wrote

I have a school project on marijuana and I have to do it with 3 other kids. They want to oppose the legalization of marijuana, while I am for it. What can I say to convince them that marijuana is not as bad as people think?

No, no, no don't convince them anything. Just explain to them why they shouldn't mate.

Hanevet wrote

Marijuana has all the goodies of tobacco (cancer, cough, etc) plus some added bonuses! (neuron destruction, imparaired awareness, etc)

Anyways, if your life sucks so much you need drugs to feel better, you fail and you must get off my planet.

I am getting off your planet. That's why I smoke!

Seriously, I don't need em, I just enjoy em. I don't need to do much other than eat and sleep. Everything else is packing as much fun in as possible. Sometimes fun requires a tradeoff.

And the drugs are less harmful to me than the sports I play. Go figure.

Hanevet wrote

Link to the actual evidence or shut up. Smoke damages the lungs, whether it be smoke from burning tobacco, burning marijuana, burning rubber, burning wood, anything. It is CO2. It is carbon. Carbon builds up. Carbon clogs the oxygen-absorbing holes in the lungs. Period. It doesn't matter what you're smoking as long as you're smoking, you're killing your lungs.

Your reasoning here is pretty shitty. First, CO2 (I'm not going to bother typing the subscript) doesn't damage your lungs in any reasonable concentration. And "carbon" doesn't have some magical property of "building up". Some carbon compounds, in some situations, build up. If you want to actually argue that smoking anything causes lung damage, you damn well better at least be able to identify the compounds responsible for that damage. CO2 isn't one of them.