BF2S Forums Legalize Marijuanna, save the United States and the World

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17

You are part of the problem NOT the solution, people like you keep drug dealers in business, hell I bet you are one yourself if not very good friends with those that are.

Although I am for legalizing drugs, so people like you can hurry up and destroy your lives while the taxpayers get rich off of it, I do not dismiss its use as harmless. If you are using drugs for anything other than its intended use, then you are ABUSING them. To try and post an argument that drug use is great, fun and harmless is absurd.

Where have I ever stated that "drug use is great, fun and harmless"?

I haven't, now stop trolling, if you don't mind.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

With those two sentences you make your ignorance about drugs all too blatantly clear.

Ignorance? Please. If anything, your lack of replies to all of my previously covered points shows yours. With a single youtube video, you make your own lack of criticism towards sources in your favour all too blatantly clear.

MDMA is easy to kill yourself on. It may not be the drug itself, but the unattended side-effects of consumption. Saying that MDMA doesn't kill is like saying that HIV doesn't kill. MDMA may not directly kill people frequently, but the likely consequences of ingestion, and more frequently the impurity of the substance as a finished product sure do.

This is like pasting a link to An Inconvenient Truth in a discussion on global warming. Be serious.

Did you watch the video?

Do you know where it came from?

It's a segment of a Horizon documentary, based on a Lancet report into a study done by a number of scientists including members of the UK governments advisory commitee on drug classification.

You can not get much more authoritative than that.

Comparing it to 'An Inconvenient Truth' is like comparing an apple to the inside of my left nostril.

Oh, and HIV doesn't kill. AIDS kills.

Again you fail to cover the points I make, instead citing the supposed authority of a youtube video wholly irrelevant to what it is that I'm actually saying.

Yes, AIDS kills, not HIV. That was the entire point of that comment. MDMA might not kill frequently, but dehydration and impure samples do. What's to blame? The drug. What's to blame for AIDS? HIV.

What you appear to be doing is trying to discredit my opinion by saying that Ecstacy doesn't kill. That is patently false. What this discussion is actually about is the sociological aspect of drug use, and whether or not it leads to a progression in intensity. You've proven your opinion wholly uninformed in your previous comments, and now you're trying to drag it off course in a desparate attempt to regain validity. Get back on track.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-04-13 05:02:30)

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Ignorance? Please. If anything, your lack of replies to all of my previously covered points shows yours. With a single youtube video, you make your own lack of criticism towards sources in your favour all too blatantly clear.

MDMA is easy to kill yourself on. It may not be the drug itself, but the unattended side-effects of consumption. Saying that MDMA doesn't kill is like saying that HIV doesn't kill. MDMA may not directly kill people frequently, but the likely consequences of ingestion, and more frequently the impurity of the substance as a finished product sure do.

This is like pasting a link to An Inconvenient Truth in a discussion on global warming. Be serious.

Did you watch the video?

Do you know where it came from?

It's a segment of a Horizon documentary, based on a Lancet report into a study done by a number of scientists including members of the UK governments advisory commitee on drug classification.

You can not get much more authoritative than that.

Comparing it to 'An Inconvenient Truth' is like comparing an apple to the inside of my left nostril.

Oh, and HIV doesn't kill. AIDS kills.

Again you fail to cover the points I make, instead citing the supposed authority of a youtube video wholly irrelevant to what it is that I'm actually saying.

Yes, AIDS kills, not HIV. That was the entire point of that comment. MDMA might not kill frequently, but dehydration and impure samples do. What's to blame? The drug. What's to blame for AIDS? HIV.

Again, WATCH THE BLOODY VIDEO!

And you'll see that it is dealing with EXACTLY the point you're making. They're not talking about pure MDMA, they're talking about REAL STREET ECSTASY.

And, again, you're making the same mistake with your statement "What's to blame for AIDS? HIV" as you were about cannabis and hard drug use - HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS. You can get AIDS without ever having been HIV positive and you can be HIV positive and never get AIDS.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Did you watch the video?

Do you know where it came from?

It's a segment of a Horizon documentary, based on a Lancet report into a study done by a number of scientists including members of the UK governments advisory commitee on drug classification.

You can not get much more authoritative than that.

Comparing it to 'An Inconvenient Truth' is like comparing an apple to the inside of my left nostril.

Oh, and HIV doesn't kill. AIDS kills.

Again you fail to cover the points I make, instead citing the supposed authority of a youtube video wholly irrelevant to what it is that I'm actually saying.

Yes, AIDS kills, not HIV. That was the entire point of that comment. MDMA might not kill frequently, but dehydration and impure samples do. What's to blame? The drug. What's to blame for AIDS? HIV.

Again, WATCH THE BLOODY VIDEO!

And you'll see that it is dealing with EXACTLY the point you're making. They're not talking about pure MDMA, they're talking about REAL STREET ECSTASY.

And, again, you're making the same mistake with your statement "What's to blame for AIDS? HIV" as you were about cannabis and hard drug use - HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS. You can get AIDS without ever having been HIV positive and you can be HIV positive and never get AIDS.

You're seriously, desperately reaching here. First you say

Oh, and HIV doesn't kill. AIDS kills.

establishing the connection. Then I agree that the connection is there, elaborating my previous point, and suddenly you're saying that it's wrong to make the connection. What I'm comparing is death by AIDS as a consequence of HIV. Are you now going to say that this doesn't happen? Get serious.

Ecstacy in street form kills. Five seconds on google will yield page after page after page of articles about fatal ecstacy consumption. Now, if you wouldn't mind, try to get back on topic.

Why do you feel that coffee and smoking marihuana are sociologically similar?

Last edited by mikkel (2008-04-13 05:11:52)

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Again you fail to cover the points I make, instead citing the supposed authority of a youtube video wholly irrelevant to what it is that I'm actually saying.

Yes, AIDS kills, not HIV. That was the entire point of that comment. MDMA might not kill frequently, but dehydration and impure samples do. What's to blame? The drug. What's to blame for AIDS? HIV.

Again, WATCH THE BLOODY VIDEO!

And you'll see that it is dealing with EXACTLY the point you're making. They're not talking about pure MDMA, they're talking about REAL STREET ECSTASY.

And, again, you're making the same mistake with your statement "What's to blame for AIDS? HIV" as you were about cannabis and hard drug use - HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS. You can get AIDS without ever having been HIV positive and you can be HIV positive and never get AIDS.

You're seriously, desperately reaching here. First you say

Oh, and HIV doesn't kill. AIDS kills.

establishing the connection. Then I agree that the connection is there, elaborating my previous point, and suddenly you're saying that it's wrong to make the connection. What I'm comparing is death by AIDS as a consequence of HIV. Are you now going to say that this doesn't happen? Get serious.

There is a connection. But it is not a case of 'get HIV and you'll get AIDS'. HIV, like the common cold, is a virus that weakens the immune system, and whilst the immune system is weakened, wether it's because of HIV or the common cold, you may then develop AIDS - there are no guarantees either way.

mikkel wrote:

Ecstacy in street form kills. Five seconds on google will yield page after page after page of articles about fatal ecstacy consumption. Now, if you wouldn't mind, try to get back on topic.

Five second on google will yield page after page after page of articles about how the attacks on 9/11 were all a conspiracy. Or how aliens are routinely visiting us and abducting people. Or, hell, a million and one things that just ARE NOT TRUE.

OH, and if you're not happy with a you tube video, try these:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007 … andalcohol
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7562/272
http://rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/ … 62.sum.pdf
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-of … /31808.htm

the last link wrote:

Although deaths from ecstasy are highly publicised, it probably kills fewer than 10 people each year which, though deeply distressing for the surviving relatives and friends, is a small percentage of the many thousands of people who use it each week. Nor is it always clear whether the deaths are caused by ecstasy itself...or the circumstances surrounding its use...in many cases they are due to environmental aspects of the dance club scene, particularly overcrowding, overheating, poor availability of cool-out rooms, and restrictions on or the high cost of drinks

mikkel wrote:

Why do you feel that coffee and smoking marihuana are sociologically similar?

I don't. But the argument that "drinking coffee leads to hard drug use" is as valid as the argument that "cannabis leads to hard drug use" - i.e. THEY'RE NOT AT ALL VALID.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-04-13 05:25:57)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Again, WATCH THE BLOODY VIDEO!

And you'll see that it is dealing with EXACTLY the point you're making. They're not talking about pure MDMA, they're talking about REAL STREET ECSTASY.

And, again, you're making the same mistake with your statement "What's to blame for AIDS? HIV" as you were about cannabis and hard drug use - HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS. You can get AIDS without ever having been HIV positive and you can be HIV positive and never get AIDS.

You're seriously, desperately reaching here. First you say

Oh, and HIV doesn't kill. AIDS kills.

establishing the connection. Then I agree that the connection is there, elaborating my previous point, and suddenly you're saying that it's wrong to make the connection. What I'm comparing is death by AIDS as a consequence of HIV. Are you now going to say that this doesn't happen? Get serious.

There is a connection. But it is not a case of 'get HIV and you'll get AIDS'. HIV, like the common cold, is a virus that weakens the immune system, and whilst the immune system is weakened, wether it's because of HIV or the common cold, you may then develop AIDS - there are no guarantees either way.

And neither is it a case of take MDMA and you'll die. That's the entire point. This is simply becoming too stupid to participate in.

I'm going to snip the part about the effects of street ecstasy, because all you've provided is a theory that works as much against your claims as it does against mine, and a bunch of articles testifying to the potential lethality of the drug. You can feel what you feel about this, but you've been dragging it off-topic long enough, and I'm never going to agree with you that ecstasy isn't dangerous, so just let it go.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Why do you feel that coffee and smoking marihuana are sociologically similar?

I don't. But the argument that "drinking coffee leads to hard drug use" is as valid as the argument that "cannabis leads to hard drug use" - i.e. THEY'RE NOT AT ALL VALID.

You said that before. You were wrong then, too, and you couldn't tell me why you feel that you were right, apparently.

Drinking coffee does not lead to use of hard drugs. That is because drinking coffee, sociologically, has absolutely nothing to do with drug abuse at all.

Smoking marihuana can, and in all likelihood and according to all statistics that you've provided, does lead to use of harder drugs. That is because smoking marihuana, sociologically, has everything to do with drug abuse, just like the use of harder drugs.

What you're saying is essentially the same as saying that a history of drinking beer for the sake of getting drunk could in no way inspire a habit of drinking hard liquors for the sake of getting drunk, simply because eating a cake containing alcohol  for the sake of flavouring won't bring about an onset of alcoholism.

People get high. People want to get higher. You're saying that wanting to get higher has nothing to do with getting high. I think we've established that your credibility in responding to my sociological argument is precisely nil, and it doesn't look to be improving.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-04-13 05:34:17)

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Again, WATCH THE BLOODY VIDEO!

And you'll see that it is dealing with EXACTLY the point you're making. They're not talking about pure MDMA, they're talking about REAL STREET ECSTASY.

And, again, you're making the same mistake with your statement "What's to blame for AIDS? HIV" as you were about cannabis and hard drug use - HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS. You can get AIDS without ever having been HIV positive and you can be HIV positive and never get AIDS.

You're seriously, desperately reaching here. First you say


establishing the connection. Then I agree that the connection is there, elaborating my previous point, and suddenly you're saying that it's wrong to make the connection. What I'm comparing is death by AIDS as a consequence of HIV. Are you now going to say that this doesn't happen? Get serious.

There is a connection. But it is not a case of 'get HIV and you'll get AIDS'. HIV, like the common cold, is a virus that weakens the immune system, and whilst the immune system is weakened, wether it's because of HIV or the common cold, you may then develop AIDS - there are no guarantees either way.

And neither is it a case of take MDMA and you'll die. That's the entire point. This is simply becoming too stupid to participate in.

I'm going to snip the part about the effects of street ecstasy, because all you've provided is a theory that works as much against your claims as it does against mine, and a bunch of articles testifying to the potential lethality of the drug. You can feel what you feel about this, but you've been dragging it off-topic long enough, and I'm never going to agree with you that ecstasy isn't dangerous, so just let it go.

2 million ecstasy tablets are consumed in the UK every weekend. There are, on average, 10 'ecstasy' deaths a year due to drinking too much or too little water.

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Why do you feel that coffee and smoking marihuana are sociologically similar?

I don't. But the argument that "drinking coffee leads to hard drug use" is as valid as the argument that "cannabis leads to hard drug use" - i.e. THEY'RE NOT AT ALL VALID.

You said that before. You were wrong then, too, and you couldn't tell me why you feel that you were right, apparently.

Drinking coffee does not lead to use of hard drugs. That is because drinking coffee, sociologically, has absolutely nothing to do with drug abuse at all.

Smoking marihuana can, and in all likelihood and according to all statistics that you've provided, does lead to use of harder drugs. That is because smoking marihuana, sociologically, has everything to do with drug abuse, just like the use of harder drugs.

What you're saying is essentially the same as saying that a history of drinking beer for the sake of getting drunk could in no way inspire a habit of drinking hard liquors for the sake of getting drunk, simply because eating a cake containing alcohol  for the sake of flavouring won't bring about an onset of alcoholism.

People get high. People want to get higher. You're saying that wanting to get higher has nothing to do with getting high. I think we've established that your credibility in responding to my sociological argument is precisely nil, and it doesn't look to be improving.

As I've already stated, it's not the same as saying drinking doesn't lead to hard liquor use, because cannabis affects the brain in a TOTALLY different way to heroin, other opiates, speed, or even alcohol.

People that want a cannabis high use cannabis. People that want an opiate high use opiates. People that want an alcohol high use alcohol. And people that want a caffeine high drink coffee.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I have, in the past, sold some weed, but nowadays I don't, I only consume it.

+1 for honesty, but your defense of drug use/abuse is still pathetic

And you're just pathetic.

lol

Too many of my friends have ended up total wasters and losers from cannabis use to support its legalisation anywhere I live.
If America wants to legalise it then great, hopefully they won't then have a usable army.

Parker wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Too many of my friends have ended up total wasters and losers from cannabis use to support its legalisation anywhere I live.
If America wants to legalise it then great, hopefully they won't then have a usable army.

stereotypical bullshit.

i smoke more chronic than most anyone i know......seriously, my girl and i go through an eighth in about two days.

im about to start my second business, and shes taking her series seven stock brokers license.

Nothing like the proud and defiant drug addict to set the record straight.

I smoke everyday as well for enjoyment and can stop whenever I feel like. But I cannot say the same for alcohol.

Hummm.

you realize the IMF are bastards ATG, if you took an essentials high school class on world politics you would realize how evil they are.

I spent some time trying to find the van Cheech & Chong made entirely of pot on Youtube, but failed.

Anyhow, beyond the regular love pot/hate pot argument:
Biofuel is NOT good for the environment.  Yes, a gallon of biofuel has less emissions than a gallon of gas, but you have to burn six times as much to have the same output.  So it's actually more damaging to the environment then gas.

There's a country in South America that found this out the hard way.  I can't remember which one (Bolivia or Bulgaria)...









...ps bulgaria is a joke, unless your high...then bulgaria acutally is part of south america.