Reefer Madness

[NoCalMike 0]

Well, I've never seen them have any problem with it. The guys I know hit up blunts right before tests. Helped some guys relax, think straight.

 

Anyways, vthe whole dependancy issue usually is dependent on the people. The only person I ever knew that was dependent was a complete depressent, even before she started smoking.

And pot was probably a lot more safe then Prozac.

[Guest MikeSC]

Quite frankly, anybody who does it tends to fit the description, whether they wish to admit to it or not. Dull, braindead people who are unable to generate a cogent thought in anything resembling a timely fashion. Somebody with whom a discussion is a waste of time and who think that they understand things that "sober" people don't when they, in fact, don't know a flying fuck about anything.

-=Mike

[Guest Brian]

Well, I've never seen them have any problem with it. The guys I know hit up blunts right before tests. Helped some guys relax, think straight.

 

Anyways, vthe whole dependancy issue usually is dependent on the people. The only person I ever knew that was dependent was a complete depressent, even before she started smoking.

And pot was probably a lot more safe then Prozac.

Plus, she was a woman. You got to take her weak emotional state into context.

[NoCalMike 0]

Quite frankly, anybody who does it tends to fit the description, whether they wish to admit to it or not. Dull, braindead people who are unable to generate a cogent thought in anything resembling a timely fashion. Somebody with whom a discussion is a waste of time and who think that they understand things that "sober" people don't when they, in fact, don't know a flying fuck about anything.

-=Mike

Did Bill Bennet steal MikeSC's smartmark identity?

 

Are you talking about when they are high, or even when they are sober. because at the time of being high, yeah sure your description is pretty spot-on 99% of the time, but when sober I'd disagree.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Not even close to everyone who smokes gets involved in this "burnout" lifestyle. I know a bunch of lawyers who go through an eighth a week, and scads of school teachers who light up after work. Pot's pot, and if you want to be a giggly dumbass, you sure can, but it's far from mandatory. Some people drink a beer after work; others pack a bowl.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I've never smoked in my life, but I know marijuana is ubiquitous, and that everyone who does it certainly isn't a burnout. One of my best friends smokes and is a (conservative~!) econ student at Rolls-Hulman. He's one of the most intelligent and successful people I know.

[Guest MikeSC]

Quite frankly, anybody who does it tends to fit the description, whether they wish to admit to it or not. Dull, braindead people who are unable to generate a cogent thought in anything resembling a timely fashion. Somebody with whom a discussion is a waste of time and who think that they understand things that "sober" people don't when they, in fact, don't know a flying fuck about anything.

            -=Mike

Did Bill Bennet steal MikeSC's smartmark identity?

 

Are you talking about when they are high, or even when they are sober. because at the time of being high, yeah sure your description is pretty spot-on 99% of the time, but when sober I'd disagree.

And most of the ones I knew it were unable to recognize how asinine they were --- even when sober.

 

Again, I don't CARE if some moron wants to kill his few brain cells --- but I don't want to spend a dime on them.

-=Mike

[iggymcfly 0]

My experiences don't agree with MikeSC's at all. I'd say that maybe 10 or 15 percent of the people I know who smoke weed fit the stereotypical stoner mold. I certainly do know those kind of people, and I can't stand them, but to say that everyone who smokes weed acts like that is ridiculous.

 

Most people I know who smoke weed just use it the same way they would alcohol. It's something to do on the weekend when you're bored. And I certainly haven't found them to be any less intelligent than people who don't smoke.

 

I never got real into weed, and I've probably only smoked like three times all year right now. But still, to see it as anything more than a semi-fun activity is silly. Just because only stoner types smoked at your school in SC doesn't mean the whole world works that way.

[The Czech Republic 0]

What defines a burnout? Because I knew people that smoked during their lunch and went into AP classes right after and got 4's. I know a guy who is probably one of the smartest people I know, full scholarship to Harvey Mudd, now at Oxford, and he came to middle school and high school smoked out. Still does whenever he wants to.

Admirable.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I guess it's time we ban email and text messaging

[The Czech Republic 0]

I would not challenge a ban on text messaging.

[Styles 0]

I don't know. I'm really torn on the whole legalising pot argument. I totally understand the argument that it would reduce crime, free up prisons and police forces to get the "real criminals", would probably lower our taxes and make more efficiant use of our government's resources (hah yeah right!) BUT, at the same time, I just have such a negative opinion of drugs and people who use them recreationally. It's annoying enough having to deal with cigarette smokers in public places/outside (it triggers an ashmatic reaction for me) not to mention adding on people smoking joints (the smell is awful, I hate having to endure it at concerts), who will likely also be acting recklessly and putting others in danger in the process. SO, the solution is make it much like alcohol where you can't drink it outside or in many public places, but we see all the problems alcohol has caused to public safety. The epidemic of drunk driving accidents is bad enough, not to mention the other lovely side effects to innocents like sexual assault and violence, do we really need to compoud this with pot too? I understand people already smoke the stuff, but it's largely done in a less open setting then alcohol is. If it was made legal, it would be "condoning" it like alcohol and it's use would be more widespread and more in the open and we'd likely be doubling the tragedies by people who lose control and cause needless death and injury to others. The argument that alcohol is worse for society and cigs are worse for your body may be true, but you can't close Pandora's Box. Prohibition was tried, it failed. They're legal, there's nothing you can do but regulate it. Once you make pot legal it just adds to the problem.

 

So...like I said, I'm torn because I like the appeal it would have on many administrative government functions but at a personal/societal level I just don't want to see it happen.

 

Besides, it won't happen because no politician who wants a career can get behind it (nor will enough other politicans support it to pass it) and furthermore the beer companies which are enormous will not allow it since it would likely hurt their profits...

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

I would not challenge a ban on text messaging.

You're damn right you wouldn't. Why text when it's on a medium of communication in the first place? It's a god damned wast of time.

[Art Sandusky 0]

The whole "if marijuana was legal abuse would increase by 10x" arguement is flat out wrong. Does anyone who thinks this think that people who want to smoke pot don't do so because it's illegal? If you (whoever) really think that you are seriously deluded.

Anyone I know who doesn't want to smoke it will tell you that their reason is that it's illegal. These people are alcoholics instead.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Of course, saying that workers distracted by email and phone calls suffers a fall in IQ of more than twice the impact of marijuana smoking isn't really saying much since there's also numerous recent studies that've shown that marijuana doesn't, in fact, cause any significant sort of brain damage as once thought long ago. 2 * 0 = 0, last time I checked.

 

I don't think I really have to express my feelings on the matter, that haven't already been expressed. I'll admit it's much more difficult for me to find marijuana that cigs or alcohol, and even takes longer and is usually a pain in the ass. I know one guy, a scheisty-looking middle-aged Cuban guy in Little Havana. Only operates during the day, on weekdays, like the bank, and I always have to go meet him at a certain spot which is a pain in the ass to get through because of traffic. Alcohol I can obtain at 3AM on a late Sunday evening at the nearby gas station, where there's also a Subway and a nearby 7-11. Cigs too, obviously, but I have no interest in inhaling any sort of carcinogens that won't have any kind of nice effect to it. At least not anymore.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

When it comes to Marijuana, under US law, under the Controlled Substances Act, it is Schedule I ("Schedule I drugs are defined as those considered to have high potential for abuse, with no recognized medical use in treatment in the US.")

 

Cocaine, PCP and Meth are Schedule II ("Schedule II drugs are those with a high potential for abuse, but recognized medical use; and a high incidence of physical or psychological dependence. These are available only by prescription, and distribution is carefully controlled and monitored by the DEA.")

 

Honestly, Marijuana should be in Schedule II

 

When it comes to users of Marijuana, that's really irrelevant. I don't care if pot makes you stupid or if you can be smart and smoke pot. It's your choice and you should deal with the consequences.

 

A lot of the dangers of Marijuana are exaggerated to further justify a failing and directionless drug war.

 

And when it comes to drugs in this country, the fact is that nobody has the guts to really figure out an effective way to reduce the drug trade. Maybe reducing the street value of those drugs can put some of the dealers out of business.

[Art Sandusky 0]

They're all just scared that it makes you think differently than normal.

[Guest MikeSC]

When it comes to users of Marijuana, that's really irrelevant. I don't care if pot makes you stupid or if you can be smart and smoke pot. It's your choice and you should deal with the consequences.

Except you WON'T. I will have to pay taxes to support you and your family when you decide to waste your life on any drug.

 

Get rid of the nanny state and I'll be happy to discuss legalization.

-=Mike

[Guest Vitamin X]

And when it comes to drugs in this country, the fact is that nobody has the guts to really figure out an effective way to reduce the drug trade. Maybe reducing the street value of those drugs can put some of the dealers out of business.

True, because the crimes that are usually being committed aren't by the users as much as the people who work in the trade. I know from when I used to do meth that everyone who becomes a tweeker kind of aspires in a way to move up in the business itself as well, which becomes their lifestyle and keeps them hooked. Perhaps making everything regulated could solve that.

[Art Sandusky 0]

You certainly don't see gangs shooting each other over beer money. That was in the 20s, but I guess this is another case of not learning from History.

[Guest MikeSC]

You certainly don't see gangs shooting each other over beer money. That was in the 20s, but I guess this is another case of not learning from History.

Big difference:

 

Alcohol was already a widely-accepted and approved-of vice. Marijuana is not.

 

And prohibition was, actually, quite successful. Alcohlism plummeted, as did consumption and alcohol-related diseases.

 

It was just piss-poor social policy and a horribly bad idea. It just wasn't an ineffective bad policy.

 

Prohibition showed how hard it is to put the genie back in the bottle after it already got out.

-=Mike

[PLAGIARISM! 0]

The main gripe I have with the 'deadhead' argument is that personally, I find Marijuana to have no real addictive properties, and not everyone who uses it does so every day or in large doses. I occasionally smoke socially, and I enjoy it, but I do not think that I have to and will not suffer any withdrawal if I don't.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Dude. We should just be the United States Of The World. One government. One currency. One world, man. That's all it is. One world.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

There's no physically addictive properties like nicotine or heroin or coke, but it's absolutely possible to get addicted to pot, same as it's possible to get addicted to anything. It's all about stimulation, and whatever produces it for the user. Pot, booze, sex, exercise, food, partisan bickering, etc.

 

My school of thought is that the societal dangers are a direct result of dealers, thugs, and cops, and that the number of potheads post prohibition would remain consistent with the current number.

 

There was a comment earlier in the thread about pot not being an accepted thing prior to prohibition, which couldn't be more wrong. True, it wasn't nearly used as widely as alcohol, but it had been in people's lungs for centuries before the 1930's. Pot prohibition is the same corrupt crock of shit it's always been. The right palms and orifices are thoroughly greased, and I don't see anything changing anytime soon. Meanwhile, people will get high anyway. Stop the presses.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

When it comes to users of Marijuana, that's really irrelevant. I don't care if pot makes you stupid or if you can be smart and smoke pot. It's your choice and you should deal with the consequences.

Except you WON'T. I will have to pay taxes to support you and your family when you decide to waste your life on any drug.

 

Get rid of the nanny state and I'll be happy to discuss legalization.

-=Mike

Right now, you're having to pay, indirectly, for the operation of federal and state prisons which are filled with people put in prison for crimes relating to marijuana. I'd imagine the costs would go up more with the more drug offenders you put in prison.

[Art Sandusky 0]

There really is little difference between alcoholic prohibition and the current laws on marijuana. Ecstasy was legal and a prescribed substance until the early 60s, and that shit's much worse for you.

 

And if marijuana is supposedly soooo unacceptable, just legalize it and let those who don't want to do it not do it. Legalization arguments aren't advocating shoving a massive J into everyone's mouths. It's just like alcohol and tobacco. If you don't like it or find it totally unacceptable, you don't do it. We really need to get off of our puritanical high horse.

 

And another swing and a miss by Czech.

[Ripper 0]

Our validictorian used to smoke pot before EVERY class. She was still knocking in the 4.0. Of course she went on to do something dealing with animals, meaning she was basically a hippie, just a really smart one. She was still cool though.

 

And Mike, are you trying to call Montel Williams a burnout. I know you ain't callin Montel a burnout. Its Montel fucking Williams.

 

 

Ripper - Putting curse words in between peoples names since 1986. Montel fan since conception.

[Carnival 0]

I would definately argue that weed is "harder to find then alcohol" Seriously, what is more likely to be in a student's backpack at school or in his back pocket, a bag of weed or a 6-pack of beer?

 

That is 100% wrong. it's plain to see something that is in damn near every kind of store or market is way more available than something that is illegal. Again this isn't based on personal experience. this based on the general public as a whole.

 

For the general public Beer and Cigs are easier to get than weed, bottom line.

 

Of course there was always the "raid the parent's liquor" option, but that seemed to get old, fast.

 

And if pot became legal, kids would get tired of raiding their parents stash. Whats the next step? Cocaine? Herion?

 

That "getting old" mentality is exactly what the gov is scared of if they were to legalize it. Now pot becomes less cool cuz it's legal, nobody thinks your cool for smoking pot anymore, gotta find something else...and thus the cycle continues.

 

but we see all the problems alcohol has caused to public safety. The epidemic of drunk driving accidents is bad enough, not to mention the other lovely side effects to innocents like sexual assault and violence, do we really need to compoud this with pot too?

 

Exactly! Someone from CA driving on the interstate near lincoln just like a month ago was blazing up in the car. Now he's high and he's driving and laughing...and he crosses the median...and kills 2 people.

 

It would just cause more social problems.

 

It's annoying enough having to deal with cigarette smokers in public places/outside

 

See what i'm saying. people hate smokers enough the way it is. Sure your reason is medical. Others just hate it, or are afraid of 2nd hand smoke cuz if you smell it, you could die instantly or something.

 

Cigarettes are becoming less legal by the day, what in the world makes anyone think pot will EVER be legal.

 

in fact, cause any significant sort of brain damage as once thought long ago.

 

Smoking pot kills more brain cells than getting drunk. fact

now i'm not saying everyone who smokes pot is dumb, but as far as brain damage, it's worse than alcohol.

 

Maybe reducing the street value of those drugs can put some of the dealers out of business.

 

How could you do this? Mass-produce it and flood the streets with it? It's not like currency. Nobody is killing people over some weed either. Weed is little kid shit to drug dealers. A drug dealer big enough to be walking around strapped has more important things on his mind. He's not worried about his little buddies selling his weed to high school kids.

 

Right now, you're having to pay, indirectly, for the operation of federal and state prisons which are filled with people put in prison for crimes relating to marijuana

 

I agree. and the laws should be changed. Nobody should be put in jail for any weed related crime, unless they have tons upon tons of the stuff, and are clearly providing the weed supply for their city or something.

 

But thats all part of the "war on drugs" BS.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Smoking pot kills more brain cells than getting drunk. fact

now i'm not saying everyone who smokes pot is dumb, but as far as brain damage, it's worse than alcohol.

 

Sounds like a researched and cited fact, to me!

[Carnival 0]

Smoking pot kills more brain cells than getting drunk. fact

now i'm not saying everyone who smokes pot is dumb, but as far as brain damage, it's worse than alcohol.

 

Sounds like a researched and cited fact, to me!

sarcasm doesn't work well on the internet, if thats what you were trying to do, i can't tell.

 

If you doubt that fact, prove me wrong. show me the research that says it causes less damage than alcohol. cuz the info that says it's worse...is everywhere. And quite frankly i thought it was just common knowledge.