Keeping pot illegal is both ignorant and destructive and deadly.
But lets keep subsidizing corn ethanol, it keeps farmers happy.
America is stupid.
But lets keep subsidizing corn ethanol, it keeps farmers happy.
America is stupid.
This is prolly a really dumb question, but can't you just grow corn instead of pot?ATG wrote:
Keeping pot illegal is both ignorant and destructive and deadly.
But lets keep subsidizing corn ethanol, it keeps farmers happy.
America is stupid.
See:Pug wrote:
This is prolly a really dumb question, but can't you just grow corn instead of pot?ATG wrote:
Keeping pot illegal is both ignorant and destructive and deadly.
But lets keep subsidizing corn ethanol, it keeps farmers happy.
America is stupid.
TheDarkRaven wrote:
And this is why I'm a pescetarian!
I'll eat fish - being careful to not eat overfished species - and vegetables, but not meat. Meat is such an inefficient way to produce food when you can feed dozens more people on the crops you feed the animals rather than the one person who can be fed on, say, a cow. If you stop eating meat, you're doing a lot of good, but people are extremely reluctant to give up the choice and I can sympathise. I love steaks and other meat - I won't say I used to because I still do, but they're just not viable (in my mind) to be eaten now - but I just can't bring myself to eat them still and I know how hard it may seem to you to give it up, but in my experienced it's actually very easy.
Bio-fuels are terrible because they will never be a viable source of fuel production given the vast amount of land needed to produce enough fuel - indeed, it's actually impossible to fuel the planet on solely bio-fuels - and so they might as well just not be used at all and that money and research spent on that being put into alternative and - more importantly - viable fuel sources for the future.
Right, see my earlier post before the one you quoted. Ps. "being careful to not eat overfished species"...you are deluding yourself if you think the fish industry is not without it's own skeletons.TheDarkRaven wrote:
See:Pug wrote:
This is prolly a really dumb question, but can't you just grow corn instead of pot?ATG wrote:
Keeping pot illegal is both ignorant and destructive and deadly.
But lets keep subsidizing corn ethanol, it keeps farmers happy.
America is stupid.TheDarkRaven wrote:
And this is why I'm a pescetarian!
I'll eat fish - being careful to not eat overfished species - and vegetables, but not meat. Meat is such an inefficient way to produce food when you can feed dozens more people on the crops you feed the animals rather than the one person who can be fed on, say, a cow. If you stop eating meat, you're doing a lot of good, but people are extremely reluctant to give up the choice and I can sympathise. I love steaks and other meat - I won't say I used to because I still do, but they're just not viable (in my mind) to be eaten now - but I just can't bring myself to eat them still and I know how hard it may seem to you to give it up, but in my experienced it's actually very easy.
Bio-fuels are terrible because they will never be a viable source of fuel production given the vast amount of land needed to produce enough fuel - indeed, it's actually impossible to fuel the planet on solely bio-fuels - and so they might as well just not be used at all and that money and research spent on that being put into alternative and - more importantly - viable fuel sources for the future.
You're trying to argue the so called sociological aspects. I'm pointing out that the epidemiological evidence shows that the sociological argument is just bullshit.mikkel wrote:
Are you actively trying to make a fool of yourself? We're talking about the SOCIOLOGY, not the PHARMACOLOGY. It really doesn't matter how it affects the brain.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
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.mikkel wrote:
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.
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.
Your own statistics establish a clear correlation between cannabis use and the use of harder drugs. You feel that it has nothing to do with the physiological or pharmacological aspects of the drug. What I'm talking about is the SOCIOLOGICAL aspects of getting high for the sake of getting high, and cannabis shares this with harder drugs, just like beer shares the sociological aspects of drinking for the sake of getting drunk with hard liquor.
You've done absolutely nothing to disprove that the sociological correlation accounts for the statistical correlation, the cause of which still seems to elude you.
So what we're back to is you saying that despite that most any aspect of life deals with progressive experiences, recreational drug use doesn't. For some reason that you don't seem aware of yourself.
1. As I told lowing, I have never stated that weed is harmless.konfusion wrote:
Weed DOES affect you quite largely - a study was done on pilots in flight simulators, and 24 hours after they got high they were still experiencing up to 15m deviations from the middle of the runway (norm is around 2-3m)
Also, again @Scorpion: HIV leads to AIDS - I think that was the analogy, was it not?
I'm not saying it doesn't, but damn, at least it's not as inefficient as meat and, if done correctly, can support all fish species well.Pug wrote:
Right, see my earlier post before the one you quoted. Ps. "being careful to not eat overfished species"...you are deluding yourself if you think the fish industry is not without it's own skeletons.TheDarkRaven wrote:
See:Pug wrote:
This is prolly a really dumb question, but can't you just grow corn instead of pot?TheDarkRaven wrote:
And this is why I'm a pescetarian!
I'll eat fish - being careful to not eat overfished species - and vegetables, but not meat. Meat is such an inefficient way to produce food when you can feed dozens more people on the crops you feed the animals rather than the one person who can be fed on, say, a cow. If you stop eating meat, you're doing a lot of good, but people are extremely reluctant to give up the choice and I can sympathise. I love steaks and other meat - I won't say I used to because I still do, but they're just not viable (in my mind) to be eaten now - but I just can't bring myself to eat them still and I know how hard it may seem to you to give it up, but in my experienced it's actually very easy.
Bio-fuels are terrible because they will never be a viable source of fuel production given the vast amount of land needed to produce enough fuel - indeed, it's actually impossible to fuel the planet on solely bio-fuels - and so they might as well just not be used at all and that money and research spent on that being put into alternative and - more importantly - viable fuel sources for the future.
well, you tell me im a "drug addict", yet i function just fine, and contribute more to society than most people. the drug addicts i have ever had any interaction with cant even manage their lives enough to have a roof over their heads. but this will lead us to that gray area regarding addictions, and based off what you have already said, im sure you have your narrow mind already made up about that.lowing wrote:
I do not give a fuck how much you make, you are a drug addict. The Enron Executives were successful as well. do you think they have respect?Parker wrote:
proud, defiant AND successful lowing.lowing wrote:
Nothing like the proud and defiant drug addict to set the record straight.
get it the fuck right.
Drug dealers, and Britney Spears and Paris Hilton make more than I do, what is your point?
agreed, but saying that is pretty much saying that people arent able to deal with controlled substances being made available to them.Kmarion wrote:
No one starts with crack..lol
Yeah, well this goes back to my first statement:Parker wrote:
agreed, but saying that is pretty much saying that people arent able to deal with controlled substances being made available to them.Kmarion wrote:
No one starts with crack..lol
cue the booze argument.
{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
I think that Marijuana should be legalised, regulated like alcohol, and taxed like tobacco.
It's what's being insinuated none-the-less.Parker wrote:
agreed, but saying that is pretty much saying that people arent able to deal with controlled substances being made available to them.Kmarion wrote:
No one starts with crack..lol
cue the booze argument.
then ya, pot is less harmful than booze, blah blah blah blah some shit that NORML said blah blah blah.Kmarion wrote:
It's what's being insinuated none-the-less.Parker wrote:
agreed, but saying that is pretty much saying that people arent able to deal with controlled substances being made available to them.Kmarion wrote:
No one starts with crack..lol
cue the booze argument.
Of course. It has also has a lot to do with it being readily available. This statement would have merit if you could back it up with numbers that show the same amount of people smoke Marijuana. My personal experience agrees with you, but if society on the whole turned into a bunch of potheads I wouldn't be so sure. At least not with absolute certainty.ATG wrote:
The impact on society from alcohol is waaaaaaaaaaay worse than that of marijuana.
What corporations are getting rich of incarcerating users? I'm curious. If the government wanted to make money off of this they would levy a tax on it. (As mentioned 100 times before in every legalize Marijuana debate)ATG wrote:
They have had less luck with keeping it away from people than they did with booze during prohibition and the ONLY reason it is illegal is because there are citizens and corporations getting rich off the incarceration of users, the confiscation property and perhaps even importing it with the backroom approval of the people within federal government.
There's a word for that kind of government; a cleptocracy.
Of the 39252 fatal accidents in the U.S. 2005, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration registered only 17 fatal traffic accidents with marijuana use alone as an exacerbating factor, compared with over 111,000 fatal accidents caused by alcohol alone.Kmarion wrote:
Of course. It has also has a lot to do with it being readily available. This statement would have merit if you could back it up with numbers that show the same amount of people smoke Marijuana. My personal experience agrees with you, but if society on the whole turned into a bunch of potheads I wouldn't be so sure. At least not with absolute certainty.ATG wrote:
The impact on society from alcohol is waaaaaaaaaaay worse than that of marijuana.What corporations are getting rich of incarcerating users? I'm curious. If the government wanted to make money off of this they would levy a tax on it. (As mentioned 100 times before in every legalize Marijuana debate)ATG wrote:
They have had less luck with keeping it away from people than they did with booze during prohibition and the ONLY reason it is illegal is because there are citizens and corporations getting rich off the incarceration of users, the confiscation property and perhaps even importing it with the backroom approval of the people within federal government.
There's a word for that kind of government; a cleptocracy.
So can you point out exactly what epidemiological evidence of yours say getting high has nothing to do with wanting to look for a bigger high? You're saying that it "absolutely 100% depends on the effect they have on the brain of the user", but you have a very clear statistical correlation between the use of cannabis and the progression to harder drugs that you're unable to account for, and you're more than willing to ignore and diminish this. That sounds more like denial than an objective analysis to me.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
You're trying to argue the so called sociological aspects. I'm pointing out that the epidemiological evidence shows that the sociological argument is just bullshit.mikkel wrote:
Are you actively trying to make a fool of yourself? We're talking about the SOCIOLOGY, not the PHARMACOLOGY. It really doesn't matter how it affects the brain.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
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.
Your own statistics establish a clear correlation between cannabis use and the use of harder drugs. You feel that it has nothing to do with the physiological or pharmacological aspects of the drug. What I'm talking about is the SOCIOLOGICAL aspects of getting high for the sake of getting high, and cannabis shares this with harder drugs, just like beer shares the sociological aspects of drinking for the sake of getting drunk with hard liquor.
You've done absolutely nothing to disprove that the sociological correlation accounts for the statistical correlation, the cause of which still seems to elude you.
So what we're back to is you saying that despite that most any aspect of life deals with progressive experiences, recreational drug use doesn't. For some reason that you don't seem aware of yourself.
It absolutely 100% depends on the effect they have on the brain of the user.
The reason beer shares so called 'sociological' factors with hard liquor is that pharmacologically they are the SAME DRUG and have the SAME EFFECT on the user, hence the user moves from one to the other, again, the sociological aspects are just bullshit.
Cannabis is NOT THE SAME DRUG to heroin and has a DIFFERENT EFFECT on the user - hence the so called 'sociological' argument is even more of a crock full of bullshit than for alcohol.
Can you provide any epidemiological evidence for the so called 'gateway' effect?
Last edited by mikkel (2008-04-13 22:39:59)
In my life I have snorted coke, smoked coke, snorted speed, taken speed pills, taken acid, taken shrooms.mikkel wrote:
So can you point out exactly what epidemiological evidence of yours say getting high has nothing to do with wanting to look for a bigger high? You're saying that it "absolutely 100% depends on the effect they have on the brain of the user", but you have a very clear statistical correlation between the use of cannabis and the progression to harder drugs that you're unable to account for, and you're more than willing to ignore and diminish this. That sounds more like denial than an objective analysis to me.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
You're trying to argue the so called sociological aspects. I'm pointing out that the epidemiological evidence shows that the sociological argument is just bullshit.mikkel wrote:
Are you actively trying to make a fool of yourself? We're talking about the SOCIOLOGY, not the PHARMACOLOGY. It really doesn't matter how it affects the brain.
Your own statistics establish a clear correlation between cannabis use and the use of harder drugs. You feel that it has nothing to do with the physiological or pharmacological aspects of the drug. What I'm talking about is the SOCIOLOGICAL aspects of getting high for the sake of getting high, and cannabis shares this with harder drugs, just like beer shares the sociological aspects of drinking for the sake of getting drunk with hard liquor.
You've done absolutely nothing to disprove that the sociological correlation accounts for the statistical correlation, the cause of which still seems to elude you.
So what we're back to is you saying that despite that most any aspect of life deals with progressive experiences, recreational drug use doesn't. For some reason that you don't seem aware of yourself.
It absolutely 100% depends on the effect they have on the brain of the user.
The reason beer shares so called 'sociological' factors with hard liquor is that pharmacologically they are the SAME DRUG and have the SAME EFFECT on the user, hence the user moves from one to the other, again, the sociological aspects are just bullshit.
Cannabis is NOT THE SAME DRUG to heroin and has a DIFFERENT EFFECT on the user - hence the so called 'sociological' argument is even more of a crock full of bullshit than for alcohol.
Can you provide any epidemiological evidence for the so called 'gateway' effect?
Cannabis is a different drug than other drugs. Obviously. Cannabis does, however, serve the same purpose as the consumption of many other harder drugs does. It gets you high. If you think that you can disprove the sociological aspects of recreational drug use by saying that two drugs aren't the same, therefore no correlation exists, then you simply do not understand what it means.
People get high to get high. If they can get high off of cannabis, and are told that they can get higher off of cocaine, some will try cocaine. It's as simple as that. It has to do with wanting to get high, not the way the drug gets you high.
Wow you totally misunderstood what I was saying as far as numbers. That or you just don't comprehend ratio's per population that use each substance. Of course the bottom line numbers are much higher. My contention is the number of people who drink alcohol completely dwarfs the amount of Marijuanna users.ATG wrote:
Of the 39252 fatal accidents in the U.S. 2005, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration registered only 17 fatal traffic accidents with marijuana use alone as an exacerbating factor, compared with over 111,000 fatal accidents caused by alcohol alone.Kmarion wrote:
Of course. It has also has a lot to do with it being readily available. This statement would have merit if you could back it up with numbers that show the same amount of people smoke Marijuana. My personal experience agrees with you, but if society on the whole turned into a bunch of potheads I wouldn't be so sure. At least not with absolute certainty.ATG wrote:
The impact on society from alcohol is waaaaaaaaaaay worse than that of marijuana.What corporations are getting rich of incarcerating users? I'm curious. If the government wanted to make money off of this they would levy a tax on it. (As mentioned 100 times before in every legalize Marijuana debate)ATG wrote:
They have had less luck with keeping it away from people than they did with booze during prohibition and the ONLY reason it is illegal is because there are citizens and corporations getting rich off the incarceration of users, the confiscation property and perhaps even importing it with the backroom approval of the people within federal government.
There's a word for that kind of government; a cleptocracy.
Of the persons who were killed in traffic crashes in 2004, 39 percent died in alcohol-related crashes. Nine percent of the injured persons received their injuries in alcohol-related crashes. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/DidYouKnow.aspx
Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news … -car-crash
It should be a crime to drive stoned. But the evidence is over whelming that we are fighting the wrong fight.
Here is but one of many private corporations running prisons;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction … of_America
I wonder how many senators would freak out if they couldn't have their gin and prescription drugs?
http://i28.tinypic.com/33le81w.jpg
It is.It should be a crime to drive stoned.
Oh, I was smoking when I read your post and got confused.Kmarion wrote:
Wow you totally misunderstood what I was saying as far as numbers. That or you just don't comprehend ratio's per population that use each substance. Of course the bottom line numbers are much higher. My contention is the number of people who drink alcohol completely dwarfs the amount of Marijuanna users.ATG wrote:
Of the 39252 fatal accidents in the U.S. 2005, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration registered only 17 fatal traffic accidents with marijuana use alone as an exacerbating factor, compared with over 111,000 fatal accidents caused by alcohol alone.Kmarion wrote:
Of course. It has also has a lot to do with it being readily available. This statement would have merit if you could back it up with numbers that show the same amount of people smoke Marijuana. My personal experience agrees with you, but if society on the whole turned into a bunch of potheads I wouldn't be so sure. At least not with absolute certainty.ATG wrote:
The impact on society from alcohol is waaaaaaaaaaay worse than that of marijuana.
What corporations are getting rich of incarcerating users? I'm curious. If the government wanted to make money off of this they would levy a tax on it. (As mentioned 100 times before in every legalize Marijuana debate)
Of the persons who were killed in traffic crashes in 2004, 39 percent died in alcohol-related crashes. Nine percent of the injured persons received their injuries in alcohol-related crashes. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/DidYouKnow.aspx
Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news … -car-crash
It should be a crime to drive stoned. But the evidence is over whelming that we are fighting the wrong fight.
Here is but one of many private corporations running prisons;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction … of_America
I wonder how many senators would freak out if they couldn't have their gin and prescription drugs?
http://i28.tinypic.com/33le81w.jpg
As far as Corrections Corporation of America. They probably do a better job. Stay out of jail, it's not as tough as your making it out to be.It is.It should be a crime to drive stoned.
I should get a commission.Kmarion wrote:
I wouldn't say they are doing extraordinary.. http://qc.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CXW&t=my
You actually peaked my interest.. I'm banking on you ATG, cmon.