Oh noez! The hippies!!!Bull3t wrote:
I think Legalizing Marijuana would take us back to the 60's & 70's.
Even though it was never legal back then, I think that hippies would come out and the resurrection of the Beattles would be soon.
I've been a part of numerous fights fueled by alcohol. Never once have I been in a fight fueled by, or under the influence of, marijuana.citricacidx wrote:
And then once people realized it wasn't such a big deal things would calm down and go back to normal, except some people would be generally nicer.
dude... lol. ok.CommieChipmunk wrote:
... I've pretty clearly stated like a thousand times that the pot heads I know are douche bags who are going to go absolutely nowhere in life. But yeah, inhaling any kind of smoke is probably going to help your lungs out a lot. It makes perfect sense tbphDes.Kmal wrote:
lol, the people who dont smoke weed have a hard time finding a valid reason about marijuana being bad. its quite funny to be honest.
QFT.jonsimon wrote:
Legalizing pot is a great idea, but it will never happen. Three very large lobbies won't let it happen. Big Pharma: If you can't patent it, it isn't allowed. Textiles/Farming: Hemp is softer and more durable than cotton. Tobacco: A substitute for tobacco with no ill side effects? Not gonna fly.
Together these three lobbies can dole out enough conflicts of interests that no politician on earth will legalize marijuana in the US.
Last edited by citricacidx (2007-07-03 13:12:57)
What?! Someone actually changing their opinion of something based on a debate in D&ST?! This can't be happening!!! The universe may collapse now!buLLet_t00th wrote:
Big revelation.......I think you guys might have changed my view point. The internetz are good for something after all!
Im not going to take it up (and I must admit it didn't really do much for me when I actually did try it), but if what you guys say is partially true then I can't see it being a HUGE problem.
I still think there needs to be a big 'once and for all' study before it gets a general legalisation.
As long as the law is sensible and workable (which will always be the stumbling block) the big problems wont materialise.
I'm all for a big once and for all study. A full, in depth report to find what the effects of marijuana use are.buLLet_t00th wrote:
Big revelation.......I think you guys might have changed my view point. The internetz are good for something after all!
Im not going to take it up (and I must admit it didn't really do much for me when I actually did try it), but if what you guys say is partially true then I can't see it being a HUGE problem.
I still think there needs to be a big 'once and for all' study before it gets a general legalisation.
As long as the law is sensible and workable (which will always be the stumbling block) the big problems wont materialise.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lib … oung4.htmlFrancis L. Young; Administrative Law Judge wrote:
8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around
1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.
Last edited by citricacidx (2007-07-03 13:19:31)
It was nice mass debating with all of you. And you were so good at it, it made me come over to your side.ghettoperson wrote:
What?! Someone actually changing their opinion of something based on a debate in D&ST?! This can't be happening!!! The universe may collapse now!buLLet_t00th wrote:
Big revelation.......I think you guys might have changed my view point. The internetz are good for something after all!
Im not going to take it up (and I must admit it didn't really do much for me when I actually did try it), but if what you guys say is partially true then I can't see it being a HUGE problem.
I still think there needs to be a big 'once and for all' study before it gets a general legalisation.
As long as the law is sensible and workable (which will always be the stumbling block) the big problems wont materialise.
Research. Then check this last statment about brain cells.Bull3t wrote:
Put it this way, We would pretty much go back to the stone age.
Everyone would be so fucked up all the time they would be stupid because of the lack of brain cells they would normally have without smoking it constantly or at all.
So we would all be cave women, men, boys & girls.
I like my statement.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Research. Then check this last statment about brain cells.Bull3t wrote:
Put it this way, We would pretty much go back to the stone age.
Everyone would be so fucked up all the time they would be stupid because of the lack of brain cells they would normally have without smoking it constantly or at all.
So we would all be cave women, men, boys & girls.
It doesn't cause brain damage.Bull3t wrote:
Put it this way, We would pretty much go back to the stone age.
Everyone would be so fucked up all the time they would be stupid because of the lack of brain cells they would normally have without smoking it constantly or at all.
So we would all be cave women, men, boys & girls.
No matter how wrong it is. Google is your friend. Its full of great knowledge and facts. Something lacking in your brain cell statement.Bull3t wrote:
I like my statement.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Research. Then check this last statment about brain cells.Bull3t wrote:
Put it this way, We would pretty much go back to the stone age.
Everyone would be so fucked up all the time they would be stupid because of the lack of brain cells they would normally have without smoking it constantly or at all.
So we would all be cave women, men, boys & girls.
I think I am going to stick with it.
Last edited by Mason4Assassin444 (2007-07-03 13:25:04)
Google hates me.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
No matter how wrong it is. Google is your friend. Its full of great knowledge and facts. Something lacking in your brain cell statement.Bull3t wrote:
I like my statement.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Research. Then check this last statment about brain cells.
I think I am going to stick with it.
I think your on something harder than weed.Bull3t wrote:
Google hates me.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
No matter how wrong it is. Google is your friend. Its full of great knowledge and facts. Something lacking in your brain cell statement.Bull3t wrote:
I like my statement.
I think I am going to stick with it.
I would be if I had the money.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
I think your on something harder than weed.Bull3t wrote:
Google hates me.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
No matter how wrong it is. Google is your friend. Its full of great knowledge and facts. Something lacking in your brain cell statement.
Y'know you don't look very retired as you claim to be. What are you plotting now?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
I think your on something harder than weed.Bull3t wrote:
Google hates me.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
No matter how wrong it is. Google is your friend. Its full of great knowledge and facts. Something lacking in your brain cell statement.
Scientific studies are biased how again? Oh yeah, they favor science over emotion, doh!d4rkst4r wrote:
Screw drugs, go home. Give me an unbiased source you tard.
fuck.. who believes scientist these days anyway right? If their information doesn't suit your cause then go make up your own data.citricacidx wrote:
You say its a biased source, but who is going to promote information proving that marijuana isn't bad for you? Obviously people who support marijuana.