BF2S Forums The war on drugs

Dilbert_X wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I argue the opposite, how about you prove your argument first?

Alcohol is well understood, there is barely any data available for marijuana.

This is completely untrue.

Which part is not understood?
We have centuries of data on millions of subjects, and probably tens of thousands of detailed medical studies.

Pot is barely into the experimental phase.

I don't see why this matters, honestly.

You don't have to have a medical degree to know that neither alcohol nor pot is healthy.  When you use a substance like alcohol or pot, you take certain risks, and you have to deal with them on a personal basis.  That's better than just having the government remove your choice in the matter.

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

This is completely untrue.

Which part is not understood?
We have centuries of data on millions of subjects, and probably tens of thousands of detailed medical studies.

Pot is barely into the experimental phase.

I don't see why this matters, honestly.

You don't have to have a medical degree to know that neither alcohol nor pot is healthy.  When you use a substance like alcohol or pot, you take certain risks, and you have to deal with them on a personal basis.  That's better than just having the government remove your choice in the matter.

"It's not a war on drugs it's a war on personal freedom" - Bill Hicks

Not enough long term users of pot?

And you live in Adelaide?

lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololo

The same could be said for many alcoholics.

I've known many long time users of pot who have tried a few other drugs but you would never have said it was close to being a dependency.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Which part is not understood?
We have centuries of data on millions of subjects, and probably tens of thousands of detailed medical studies.

Pot is barely into the experimental phase.

The effects on the body of long term alcohol use are not very well understood at all.

In the past few years new details have come to light about impacts of use of alcohol (impact of binge drinking vs. prolonged heavy drinking, impact when combined with energy drinks, impact on the young etc.), they are constantly finding out new things about it and revising health guidelines as a result.

To say alcohol is well understood shows how little about this you seem to understand. There is not centuries of data on millions of subjects - that's just wrong...

Lets say there's about 100 times more knowledge about alcohol than pot then, as you point out, there are many in-depth studies being done all the time on alcohol, with pot they've barely even started, not least because there aren't enough long term users to usefully study yet.

Again, completely untrue. There are more studies being done into cannabis than alcohol.

Aren't enough long term users to usefully study? That's untrue too.

There was a similar amount of investigation into the effects of cannabis as into the effects of alcohol during the Victorian era (when most of these useful discoveries began). Cannabis was obviously legal then, as was everything else, but as it was being used by the Queen they thought they should study it a bit.

Recreational cannabis use has been going on for millenia. It's not something new.

Every statement you've posted so far has been based purely on your opinion, with no basis in fact. You need to get your facts straight, as it looks like this is a subject you know very little about.

they should sign up to these forums :\

gentlemen, you are trying to talk down a pothead. to explain to him that his shit of choice is harmful. it's like trying to explain to a bee that honey could adversely affect it. stop it already.