Are you anti or pro marijuana?

Traditionally techies were bud smokers. And most of the real ones still are.

Watch out all you teenage pencil neck geeks, your time will come.

 

[royaldank]

<< I don't smoke...I tried it once, and didn't like it at all, b/c there was no effect for me. It's no biggie that my friends smoke it either, because all we do is b.s. and chill and eat stuff and talk for hours after that, and that's what friends love to do, ain't it? And it happens regularly without any intoxicants, so it's not necessary either.
>>




Most people don't get high the first time they smoke it. You try smoking it again a couple times. It's kind of like the first time you tried booze...the taste was hideous, but the payoff was really fun. But, I do like the fact you haven't taken everything the tv and government try to throw out at you saying 'drugs are the devil's tool.' You've at lest done a little research and seen that marijuana has very little effect health wise other than lung damage. And, with decriminalized pot, manufacturers would be able to produce better bud and make it widely available. While it may sound untrue, better pot is better for you (at least in relation to mexican cross country brick weed). The higher the potency, the less people smoke. Studies have shown that smokers want to get high and for the most part only smoke enough to get high. Drinkers, on the other hand, drink until they become sick, passout, or otherwise cannot drink anymore.

I recommend anyone who hasn't smoked it to try it. It's a cool expierence and it wont kill you. It can't kill you. Worst thing that can happen is you feel bad for a few hours and then fall asleep. I would also recommend shrooms or anything else that occurs naturally on this earth. But, I'll be the first to say no when asked to do something that has been cooked up in a lab or been processed with added chemicals or additives. Only bud and shrooms for me.

 

[jobberd]

<< I would also recommend shrooms or anything else that occurs naturally on this earth. But, I'll be the first to say no when asked to do something that has been cooked up in a lab or been processed with added chemicals or additives. Only bud and shrooms for me. >>

I dislike this argument because it portrays synthetic drugs as more dangerous drugs. True, there are lots of synthetic drugs that are extremely dangerous (PCP and methamphetamines are two examples), but this doesn't mean that all that is natural is good and all that is synthetic is evil. Take mescaline for example. If you were to derive it naturally, you would be taking it along with many other alkaloids, many of which give the sensation of nausea. Mescaline created in labs is simply mescaline mixed with an extremely small amount of hydrochloric/sulfuric acid to help stabilize the chemical. I can see how people make the point that synthetics are more dangerous because they were not created naturally by earth, but you must also remember that there are many things created naturally on earth that are dangerous and can kill you easily

 

[royaldank]

I understand that and agree with you. I think I just didn't follow through enough with my thought. I was thinking more of stuff like X and acid or smack, which is a mixture of other drugs and is done inside someone's living room or basement. Synthetic drugs aren't necessarily more harmful (as we use thousands in hospitals and pharmacies across the country), but I was thinking more of the typical recreational drugs. I just don't take X because unless you know exactly where it came from (which is next to impossible), you can't really be sure what all was put in there. Same for acid and other drugs.

Now, if a doctor is prescribing something, you can be fairly sure there is some government agency looking over the producer's shoulder and making sure its done properly.

Then again, not all pot is just marijuana. But, I know where all the stuff I smoke came from and that it's all marijuana and thc.

 

[jobberd]

Ah yes, I see your point now.
The only exception is LSD if in blotter paper or microdot form. The amount of LSD needed to affect the human body is so low (0.1 mg i believe) that it would be impossible to effectively lace any other drugs with it. Other then that, your argument is sound.

 

[Circlenaut]

<< I'm anti-anti-marijuana! >>

Double negitives makes positive so your with it.
I just want hemp to be legal.

 

[jobberd]

<< Double negitives makes positive so your with it. >>

That was the point of it, yes. Either that or he/she was simply opposed to the anti-marijuana views that people have

 

[Verronda]

Anti------- Even in medical situations, I think it can still get out of control.

 

[mindless1]

<< Ah yes, I see your point now.
The only exception is LSD if in blotter paper or microdot form. The amount of LSD needed to affect the human body is so low (0.1 mg i believe) that it would be impossible to effectively lace any other drugs with it. Other then that, your argument is sound. >>


Just like LSD, there are plenty of other substances that affect the body in tiny dosage. One example that has often been added to or substituted for product sold as LSD, is strychnine.

 

[killface]

<<

<< Ah yes, I see your point now.
The only exception is LSD if in blotter paper or microdot form. The amount of LSD needed to affect the human body is so low (0.1 mg i believe) that it would be impossible to effectively lace any other drugs with it. Other then that, your argument is sound. >>


Just like LSD, there are plenty of other substances that affect the body in tiny dosage. One example that has often been added to or substituted for product sold as LSD, is strychnine. >>


That's not true. It was a scare tactic. strychnine has never been found in any hits of LSD.

 

[royaldank]

<< Anti------- Even in medical situations, I think it can still get out of control. >>



What is out of control? Munching some Cheetos and watching TV while laughing at stupid stuff? I'm being serious here...I'm not sure what you mean by out of control. A little lung damage, sure, but in a medical situation, you aren't going to be smoking a boat load for 10 years. You are going to be using it in a controlled situation and your lungs will repair themselves within 3 to 9 months after you are done smoking. Your lungs repair themselves even in long time smokers of cigarrettes which do a lot more damage than a joint.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Anti------- Even in medical situations, I think it can still get out of control.

It's great the way this person obviously didn't read any of the posts. You want to know why marijuana is illegal, this is why. People don't listen.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Pro-medicinal: effective for glaucoma, anorexia and multiple wasting illnesses (cancer, immunodeficiency), cheap (particularly if you let people grow their own)

Anti-recreational: lack of control ala tobacco, alcohol

Smoking pot does not cause a little bit of lung damage. If you toke(sp?) you tend to inhale deeper and hold, smoking a single joint is equivalent to multiple cigarettes. They are not inherently safer than cigarettes so you have the same concerns with habitual use emphysema, COPD, heart disease, cancer of the mouth, throat, and lung. Will most pot smokers die from cancer? No, but smoking is just like playing golf during a thunderstorm. It's not very likely that YOU will get hit but why take the chance? While heart tissue recovers quickly after you stop smoking, your lungs are permanently damaged.


I recommend anyone who hasn't smoked it to try it. It's a cool expierence and it wont kill you. It can't kill you. Worst thing that can happen is you feel bad for a few hours and then fall asleep.
Terrible idea. By the numbers 1/100 people have schizophrenia. Marijuana will elicit an episode of psychosis. Marijuana is the #1 cause of gynecomastia in the US (although this website disagrees the majority of the literature says yes) . . . for the rumor mongers . . . a noted surgeon at a prominent university hospital said Tom Cruise had reduction at a renowned West Coast medical facility due to "herb-induced bitch tits". Yes, Texmaster unsubstantiated but I take his word on it. It is true that it will probably be a cool experience and a single time will not kill you; but marijuana IS an addictive substance. It is not on par with nicotine or cocaine but it is habit forming; particularly if substance abuse or personality disorders are present in 1st degree relatives. So if you intend to try don't let the peanut gallery convince you that the risk is insignificant.

 

[ttn1]

<< While heart tissue recovers quickly after you stop smoking, your lungs are permanently damaged. >>



Pretty sure you have that backwards. My step-father died of heart failure after many years of chain smoking unfiltered cigarettes.

He had an exam and it showed that his lungs were actually average, while his heart was severely enlarged.

Having an average lung-capacity after 30 years of chain smoking actually baffled the doctors.



<< but marijuana IS an addictive substance >>



Hate to crap on your entire post but come on. By your definition everything is addictive and habit forming.
Marijuana is no more addictive than sugar. Get your facts straight before you come in here ranting.

 

[Infos]

Pro all the way

I predict de-criminalization in Canada within 5 years

Alcohol is much more harmful than weed!!!

(and it certainly isn't worth all the time hard-luck victims are serving, esp. in the states)

Despite what the republicans say....all drugs are not the same, far from it!

 

[mindless1]

<< That's not true. It was a scare tactic. strychnine has never been found in any hits of LSD. >>


What's "It", as-in, "It was a scare tactic."? I'm not referring to anti-drug propaganda that may be circulating who_knows_where...

I know people that have been busted for selling what they thought was LSD, and it turned out to be ALL strychnine. I've also heard many people [who are experienced in taking LSD] describe adverse reactions to what they took, their explination being that it had strychnine in it.

The way I've heard that you call tell the difference, is that the strychnine will produce nausea and dehydration, among other nervous system side-effects... symptons that can't be attributed to a bad_trip. Granted, I don't have any first-hand experience with LSD, because I feel that it is dangerous to take something that mind-altering. NOT dangerous-to-the-body, but rather, dangerous in what a person might do while under the influence.

 

[royaldank]

<< I predict de-criminalize in Canada within 5 years
>>



Yeah, I think so. Vancouver (or Van-sterdam as it is becoming known as) is leading the way. Do you know what the current situation is like in Vancouver? It seems they kept going back and forth on the issue, but I thought last I had heard it was de-criminalized.

And now, the UK has de-criminalized it (slid that through while the US wasn't looking during the aftermath of Sept 11). Canada it seems will be the next big hitter. So, you've got most countries in Europe, the UK, and some parts of Canada looking the other way now when it comes to weed. Seems to me the majority of people are speaking up. While it may take the US awhile, I can see attitudes becoming more and more lax. Especially when we have state policians pushing for it (including governors), and states like Alaska and New Mexico that could really care less whether it's legal or not.

The problem isn't so much the drugs, it's the attitude towards them. Everyone is fine with beer, but it spurs attacks of depression and dependancies. However, everyone sees it as a social drug and while it may be bad, it's fine because it's legal. But, weed is bad because it's illegal. Most people against have no idea why it's bad. The government certainly doesn't know why it's illegal. All they know is the cotton industry was lining their pockets with a different green.

 

[bjc112]

<< Puff puff Giiive. >>



you got it........

 

[jobberd]

<< Anti-recreational: lack of control ala tobacco, alcohol >>

Hardly the same loss of control as alcohol. Marijuana does not for the most part make you throw up, does not make you violent, and if you have too much the worst that will happen is you will feel uncomfortable for a bit and then fall asleep.

<< Smoking pot does not cause a little bit of lung damage. If you toke(sp?) you tend to inhale deeper and hold, smoking a single joint is equivalent to multiple cigarettes. They are not inherently safer than cigarettes so you have the same concerns with habitual use emphysema, COPD, heart disease, cancer of the mouth, throat, and lung. Will most pot smokers die from cancer? No, but smoking is just like playing golf during a thunderstorm. It's not very likely that YOU will get hit but why take the chance? While heart tissue recovers quickly after you stop smoking, your lungs are permanently damaged. >>

If you were to say that smoking marijuana is worse then smoking tobacco then I'd have a hard time arguing with that. However, cigarettes are packed with hundreds of dangerous chemicals, many of which are the leading causes of lung cancer. There are tens of thousands of deaths reported due to the use of cigerettes, but there is yet to be one reported death due to marijuana use.

<< Terrible idea. By the numbers 1/100 people have schizophrenia. Marijuana will elicit an episode of psychosis. >>

1/100? That is a VERY high number of people. Maybe you have your statistics mixed up. Marijuana will NOT elicit an episode of psychosis. If someone is mentally unstable and has schizophrenia, marijuana MIGHT trigger it off, but it doesn't always, and the user is bound to go through psychosis anyways even if he/she never does drugs.

<< Marijuana is the #1 cause of gynecomastia in the US (although this website disagrees the majority of the literature says yes) . . . for the rumor mongers . . . a noted surgeon at a prominent university hospital said Tom Cruise had reduction at a renowned West Coast medical facility due to "herb-induced bitch tits". Yes, Texmaster unsubstantiated but I take his word on it. >>

Quoted from groups.google.com:
Authors - Cates W Jr, Pope JN
Title - Gynecomastia and cannabis smoking. A nonassociation among US
Army soldiers.
Source - American Journal of Surgery
Date - 1977 Nov
Issue - 134(5)
Pages - 613-5
Abstract -
Eleven patients diagnosed with idiopathic gynecomastia requiring
mammoplasty were compared with matched controls to determine if
there was an association between cannabis use and gynecomastia.
Patients with gynecomastia were not significantly different from
controls regarding their history of cannabis use. For those who
admitted using cannabis, patients had a higher frequency but a
shorter median duration of use than controls; differences were not
statistically significant. Our epidemiologic evidence does not
support the previously reported relationship between chronic
cannabis use and gynecomastia.

I've only heard one doctor state and support this theory (Paul Donahue). Even the NIDA website makes no mention of this, and they exagerrate MANY things about marijuana.

<< It is true that it will probably be a cool experience and a single time will not kill you; but marijuana IS an addictive substance. It is not on par with nicotine or cocaine but it is habit forming; particularly if substance abuse or personality disorders are present in 1st degree relatives. So if you intend to try don't let the peanut gallery convince you that the risk is insignificant. >>

As stated numerous times before; marijuana is not physically addictive. it is not even in the same LEAGUE as nicotine, cocaine, or heroin. The only reason why people might get addicted to it is if they enjoy it too much. This happens to ANY substance, including chocolate and sugar. The substance doesn't even have to be a food; it can be gambling or playing video games.

 

[carmat4]

dont use it. But it has proven its medical uses.

 

[SuperPickle]

Growing up in a very small town, geef was simply 'the devil.' Those that used it (in high school anyway) were were either part of a socially undesireable subculture or kept it very well hidden. It was not until later that I realized its widespread use. Now, having been elightened on the subject through stereotypical college experimentation, I have a better understanding of the frequency of users all around us and can better empathise with their (our) reasons for doing so. I'll reiterrate what many have said here and say "to each, his own." If you try to convince me to smoke or not to smoke, I'll kick you in the nutz and likewise, if the roles were reversed, I would expect you to do the same to me.

Royaldank: although I completely agree with "only bud and shrooms for me," I completely disagree with your suggestion that everyone should try it--especially shrooms. These are very potent, and very life-changing. Most people are not ready for the turning point that these can stamp on one's life--good or bad.

 

[bjc112]

<< Traditionally techies were bud smokers. And most of the real ones still are.

Watch out all you teenage pencil neck geeks, your time will come. >>




I'm getting to be a techie.. but my time has already come.. and still is... there is no reason why you shouldn't beable to smoke..

 

[FelixDeCat]

>Traditionally techies were bud smokers. And most of the real ones still are.


Uhhm......no. Traditionally techies dont even drink. They just play with their computer. :Q

Of course the punk teens of the 90s on up - that could be another story.
'cause when your stoned you really THINK your pretty good at everything.

Dope is for dopes.

 

[jobberd]

<< Uhhm......no. Traditionally techies dont even drink. They just play with their computer. >>

Go check out www.thinkgeek.com and you'll see that there's tons of items for drinking alcohol and coffee. Techies aren't afraid to delve into the drugs....

<< Of course the punk teens of the 90s on up - that could be another story.
'cause when your stoned you really THINK your pretty good at everything. >>

Have you been stoned? can you verify that?

<< Dope is for dopes. >>

Clever

 

[xero940]

<< Dope is for dopes. >>



Ummmm...

"I'm not a chicken...you're a TURKEY!"

Ten points for any one who can get that quote...

Drug-free's the way to be...*finishes 6th 40 oz.*...what you say?