Drugs and the people who use them

[Lonewulf]

I don't share your faith.

OK..... :wink:

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html

Just remember, folks: If it's research that shows that Marijuana is bad, then it's good research. If it shows that Marijuana isn't as bad as everyone claims, then it's obviously bad research.

Furthermore, there are no different kinds of Marijuana. All breeds are exactly the same. If anyone says differently, they're obviously wrong, since this means that there might be "non-harmful" brands.

Furthermore, I detect biase when reading the link. Yes, I know it's the DEA, but they do have an agenda.

Furthermore, from the article:

Marijuana is much stronger now than it was decades ago. According to data from the Potency Monitoring Project at the University of Mississippi, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of commercial-grade marijuana rose from an average of 3.71 percent in 1985 to an average of 5.57 percent in 1998. The average THC content of U.S. produced sinsemilla increased from 3.2 percent in 1977 to 12.8 percent in 1997.7

Much stronger, huh? So did Marijuana magically change? Or maybe there are various different breeds? Huh.

I thought it was a discussion, but oh well....

This is a debate -- and it's a useless debate. We might as well be arguing whether or not God exists.

So you are saying lets ingest them all. I don't think that would be better either.

Yeap. You don't think that it would be better. Based on opinion.

I don't know why you are always comparing gay marriages with this.

I was comparing the fallous arguments. You didn't get that, but I don't get why.

Lonewulf, Marijuana isn't the only pain killer in existence.

No, but Marijuana does have it's use. According to the DEA, they don't, so maybe that part of my argument might be wrong. Nonetheless, I still detect biase.

But anyway I am done with this discussion........ :wink:

Okay. Like I said, it's based on faith. No one comes away thinking, "He had a good point..."

They just come away trying to find yet another way to destroy the other person's argument.

Arguing about Marijuana is useless and a waste of time. People will believe whatever they want to believe.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

But anyway I am done with this discussion........ :wink:

But we haven't even gotten to issues of principles yet.
You know, civil liberties.

[Diana30]

Lonewulf wrote:

Arguing about Marijuana is useless and a waste of time. People will believe whatever they want to believe.

Now that is totally agreeable........ :wink:

[Lonewulf]

Now that is totally agreeable........ :wink:

Just remember: They're never biased as long as they agree with you.

[Enzo]

Wow, this place got busy over the weekend.

All axe murderers, heroin addicts, fill in your favorite bad thing here started out on mother's milk. Therefore...

Sure people who use all kinds of drugs started with the one that is most available first. So? MOST pot users do not go on to other "heavier" drugs. They stick with pot. I know many aging hippy types in the area, as well as many musicians of the current era. If they run out of pot, they look for more pot, not heroin, or oxycintin, or meth, or BCPs. They want some pot. Just as you would not reach for a cook book if you couldn't find the phone book. They want what they want.

My experience over the last 40 years with the drug crowd is not that they are hungering to do other drugs, a room full of guys smoking pot are less likely to do ANYTHING else, let alone go out looking for get-high pills. Bag of dope, TV, couch. If anything, pot is the gateway drug to cases of beer. Other than those of us who don't drink, I rarely see a gathering of smokers where the beer is not also flowing.

That said, I don't see anyne claiming that alcohol leads to other drugs. Gee this Budweiser is great, I think I'll try heroin.

Full disclosure. I don't use drugs, but there was a time I did... a lot. 40 years ago I was part of the "counter culture" the Woodstock generation if you have to. Oooh I liked to get high. It was almost a given that you smoked pot, I think along with long hair, smoking pot was expected of you. I gave it my best. I got into pot because every one else was into it. They like it, it must be fun. I didn't like it. After a couple months I never touched it again. But I liked LSD, oh yes, and mescaline, and psyllocybin. I liked the open your head drugs. Pot made you stupid, slow, and parnoid. "What was that? Are there cops in th basement?" "We don't HAVE a basement, Enzo." I did LSD first actually. Pot was certainly not a gateway drug for this boy. But of course that is just me. But I was an example of someone in search of interesting highs. Pot smokers by contrast are into being laid back and mellow. SMoke dope, watch TV slack jawed for hours.

I haven't taken any drugs - and I am talking about what we as a society call DRUGS, not pedantic inclusions of Tylenol or coffee - since 1970. I like being mentally sharp, it matters more to me. But I also know plenty of folks who are not straight - drug wise - (I know plenty not-straight the other kind too) who lead normal lives. They sell cars, they cook at a restaurant, they own stores, they have families, they go to sporting events, they pay taxes and go to PTA meetings. I've been straight for 35 years which is longer than a lot of the people who look down their noses at drug users have been alive. Gateway schmateway.

WHy did I stop? I got tired of it. And then I started bumping into the law, and my final contact with them closed the door.

By the way, it bugs me when people twist the metaphors in mid stream. A recreational drug is one used with the purpose other than therapeutic. Just because one overdoses, or gets arrested, or dies, or whatever, doesn't make it non-recreational. The result may be dire and unwanted, but so is falling off a mountain you are climbing or being eaten by a shark while swimming in the sea. Those remain recreational activities regardless. So forget the rhetoric.


If they legalize pot, why would it be surprising that they rolled it up into packs like cigarrettes? Of course they would. It would be just like buying beer in 6-packs.

[Lonewulf]

Nice post, Enzo! I don't have much to comment except...

By the way, it bugs me when people twist the metaphors in mid stream. A recreational drug is one used with the purpose other than therapeutic. Just because one overdoses, or gets arrested, or dies, or whatever, doesn't make it non-recreational. The result may be dire and unwanted, but so is falling off a mountain you are climbing or being eaten by a shark while swimming in the sea. Those remain recreational activities regardless. So forget the rhetoric.

Ah, yeah, lovely illogical rhetoric. Similar to claiming that Atheists are all immoral since you need to believe in God to be moral, or that being homosexual makes you more likely to kill someone.

[Lance]

Enzo

[teri tait]

:glp-worship: Enzo

LMAO, you crack me up Big L!

[Diana30]

Sure people who use all kinds of drugs started with the one that is most available first. So? MOST pot users do not go on to other "heavier" drugs. They stick with pot. I know many aging hippy types in the area, as well as many musicians of the current era. If they run out of pot, they look for more pot, not heroin, or oxycintin, or meth, or BCPs. They want some pot. Just as you would not reach for a cook book if you couldn't find the phone book. They want what they want.

Check what you are saying is it one or the other? First you state that "sure people who use all kinds of drugs started with one most available (which logically would be pot to me). Then you go on and say that most pot users do not go on to other heavier drugs. Doesn't make sense... :wink: (ok maybe I miss understanded this one)

My experience over the last 40 years with the drug crowd is not that they are hungering to do other drugs, a room full of guys smoking pot are less likely to do ANYTHING else, let alone go out looking for get-high pills. Bag of dope, TV, couch. If anything, pot is the gateway drug to cases of beer. Other than those of us who don't drink, I rarely see a gathering of smokers where the beer is not also flowing.

Maybe just because you were like that? And I think you did not read my post "very well" I stated many times that not all pot useres (but most) will take on to another drug. Shouldn't turn things around like that just to have something to say.

That said, I don't see anyne claiming that alcohol leads to other drugs. Gee this Budweiser is great, I think I'll try heroin.

I never mentioned anything about alcohol , but it could.

Full disclosure. I don't use drugs, but there was a time I did... a lot. 40 years ago I was part of the "counter culture" the Woodstock generation if you have to. Oooh I liked to get high. It was almost a given that you smoked pot, I think along with long hair, smoking pot was expected of you. I gave it my best. I got into pot because every one else was into it. They like it, it must be fun. I didn't like it. After a couple months I never touched it again. But I liked LSD, oh yes, and mescaline, and psyllocybin. I liked the open your head drugs. Pot made you stupid, slow, and parnoid. "What was that? Are there cops in th basement?" "We don't HAVE a basement, Enzo." I did LSD first actually. Pot was certainly not a gateway drug for this boy. But of course that is just me. But I was an example of someone in search of interesting highs. Pot smokers by contrast are into being laid back and mellow. SMoke dope, watch TV slack jawed for hours.

You see you got into it "because" everyone else was into it? See where my statement about getting into drugs always having a cause comes in?

I haven't taken any drugs - and I am talking about what we as a society call DRUGS, not pedantic inclusions of Tylenol or coffee - since 1970. I like being mentally sharp, it matters more to me. But I also know plenty of folks who are not straight - drug wise (I know plenty not-straight the other kind too)

I don't know to whom that last line was pointed to, but I don't think that anyone who has gotten into drugs is all that straight either.

WHy did I stop? I got tired of it. And then I started bumping into the law, and my final contact with them closed the door.

Which proves that doing drugs ain't a good thing is it? And still you think pot being legalized is not a bad thing why? So that alot of people have to pass through horrible experiences like you did?

By the way, it bugs me when people twist the metaphors in mid stream. A recreational drug is one used with the purpose other than therapeutic. Just because one overdoses, or gets arrested, or dies, or whatever, doesn't make it non-recreational. The result may be dire and unwanted, but so is falling off a mountain you are climbing or being eaten by a shark while swimming in the sea. Those remain recreational activities regardless. So forget the rhetoric.

I think what you said bugs me even more.... :D


Ok, then change all the dictionarys in the world. Look up the word have you ever?...... :D

1. Of or relating to recreation: recreational swimming.

2. Of or relating to the occasional use, asserted not to be addictive, of narcotics: "You can't accept recreational drug use and expect to control the drug problem" (Lacy Thornburg).

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/di ... 6vfj2sgMMF

If they legalize pot, why would it be surprising that they rolled it up into packs like cigarrettes? Of course they would. It would be just like buying beer in 6-packs.

Like Lonewulf said in one of his post: " Everyone will believe what they whant to believe"...... :wink:


Diana

[Lance]

Sure people who use all kinds of drugs started with the one that is most available first. So? MOST pot users do not go on to other "heavier" drugs. They stick with pot. I know many aging hippy types in the area, as well as many musicians of the current era. If they run out of pot, they look for more pot, not heroin, or oxycintin, or meth, or BCPs. They want some pot. Just as you would not reach for a cook book if you couldn't find the phone book. They want what they want.

Check what you are saying is it one or the other? First you state that "sure people who use all kinds of drugs started with one most available (which logically would be pot to me). Then you go on and say that most pot users do not go on to other heavier drugs. Doesn't make sense... :wink:

Why? Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you need to reread it.

And I think you did not read my post "very well" I stated many times that not all pot useres (but most) will take on to another drug.

But the reality is that it is "some" or "few", not "most".

See where my statement about getting into drugs always having a cause comes in?

Your statement was that marijuana was that "cause". This clearly refutes that.

Like Lonewulf said in one of his post: " Everyone will believe what they whant to believe"......

Regardless of how wrong she may be. ;)

[Diana30]

Your statement was that marijuana was that "cause". This clearly refutes that.

Yes I stated that Marijuana could be the cause of other drug use, but read again I also stated that I don't think that people get into "drugs" because they were predisposed to do so, but that I belive there was always a cause...... :wink:



Diana

[Lance]

Your statement was that marijuana was that "cause". This clearly refutes that.

Yes I stated that Marijuana could be the cause of other drug use, but read again I also stated that I don't think that people get into "drugs" because they were predisposed to do so, but that I belive there was always a cause...... :wink:

Well that is just silly then.

"Because they wanted to" is a cause too.

[Diana30]

Don't be silly you know I mean other then that.....


Anyways we are all silly for keeping up this non sense..... :wink:




Diana

[teri tait]

Because they want to is the number one reason people do anything, especially drugs.

When I was growing up in Alaska, pot was legal up to 3 ounces for personal use. Lots of people grew it and smoked it. I didn't smoke because I didn't like it myself, but I hung out with plenty of people who did. Here in California its quasi-legal, if you have a presription and don't get caught by federal agents.
Its really quite ridiculous for a state to legalize something that is federally illegal. I find it ironic and funny.

[Lonewulf]

Anyways we are all silly for keeping up this non sense..... :wink:

I agree. But as people who are anti-Marijuana have yet to really accept the arguments, I will still argue or avoid discussion. So I guess the "nonsense" will have to continue.

[Diana30]

Anyways we are all silly for keeping up this non sense..... :wink:

I agree. But as people who are anti-Marijuana have yet to really accept the arguments, I will still argue or avoid discussion. So I guess the "nonsense" will have to continue.

So, your saying I should accept Marijuana being legalized?

You are saying that I should accept wanting to see another harmful chemical legalized so that it can destroy people more than cigarettes and alcohol are doing already?


You want me to accept that Marijuana does not lead to other drug use?


I will always be against Marijuana being legalized. No matter what.
I just don't see nothing beneficial in having it legalized. But I do see the non-beneficial part of it.



I'm sorry............ :wink:


Diana

[Lonewulf]

So, your saying I should accept Marijuana being legalized?

You're saying I shouldn't? Here we go with the Rhetoric again.

You are saying that I should accept wanting to see another harmful chemical legalized so that it can destroy people more than cigarettes and alcohol are doing already?

Where is your evidence that it "can destroy people more than cigarettes and alcohol"? You've offered nothing but rhetoric, a biased report, and illogical arguments.

You want me to accept that Marijuana does not lead to other drug use?

You want me to accept that it does, without providing evidence of this claim.

I will always be against Marijuana being legalized. No matter what.

BINGO!.

Debating with people like you is pointless, and a waste of time. Moving on.

I just don't see nothing beneficial in having it legalized. But I do see the non-beneficial part of it.

Right, because you skipped over the majority of points I made, because you cannot be convinced. Period.

I'm sorry............ :wink:

Saying "I'm sorry" while winking is a waste of breath.

[teri tait]

A friend of mine has Hepatitus C, which is incurable and terminal as it destroys your liver. He got it while in the Air Force serving in the Gulf. He smokes pot because the meds he takes make him nauseated. He smoked before he was diagnosed too. He can smoke all the pot he wants as far as I'm concerned, I mean if it makes the pain less or gets him stoned so he doesn't worry as much I don't care as long as it makes his life easier.
That doesn't mean I want my kids smoking pot or drinking either. I talk to them about all of it, especially my 13 yr old as she is at a vulnerable age for peer pressure. The funny part is her Dad made her promise to not smoke cigarettes (which she hates anyway) and she told me that pissed her off and kinda wanted to make her try it sometime.
I think its better to be informed and make your own decisions.

[Lance]

I will always be against Marijuana being legalized. No matter what.

Diana:

Do you even understand why that is such a closed-minded and naive thing to say?

[Lonewulf]

I think its better to be informed and make your own decisions.

That's what it comes down to, really. Being informed, instead of having government legislature pass a law, and having everyone scramble to try to justify it with biased publishing of selected studies.

[Diana30]

You're saying I shouldn't? Here we go with the Rhetoric again.

Same thing

Where is your evidence that it "can destroy people more than cigarettes and alcohol"? You've offered nothing but rhetoric, a biased report, and illogical arguments.

You are misunderstanding my post I said: More than cigarettes and alcohol are "already doing".

BINGO!.

Debating with people like you is pointless, and a waste of time. Moving on.

Funny how people can think the same thing

Right, because you skipped over the majority of points I made, because you cannot be convinced. Period.

Or you?

Saying "I'm sorry" while winking is a waste of breath.

Im sorry about that too...... :wink:


Diana

[Lonewulf]

You are misunderstanding my post I said: More than cigarettes and alcohol are "already doing".

Once more: Where is your evidence that this decision would do such a thing?

Funny how people can think the same thing

Yeah, except that I backed my arguments up, and actually responded to your points, as opposed to ignoring the majority and focusing on the minority. It's a "good" argument tactic for drawing out an argument, but very bad for gleaning any useful ideas or information, which is the point of a debate.

Or you?

How am I unconvincable? Maybe if you gave some statistics showing how in decline countries that have legalized Marijuana (which is the majority of other countries) are because they allowed such a horrible drug. According to your logic, Canada must be *full* of crack users, yet I haven't heard of such a thing. Hm.

[Lance]

Right, because you skipped over the majority of points I made, because you cannot be convinced. Period.

Or you?

Diana:

You made the statement that you would not change your mind even if clear and convincing evidence were presented to you that you were wrong.

That you say you wouldn't change your mind even if proved wrong means you couldn't care less about the truth. You just want it your way for no better reason than "because".

So there really is no reason to debate with you because you are not debating. You are preaching.

[Diana30]

Right, because you skipped over the majority of points I made, because you cannot be convinced. Period.

Or you?

Diana:

You made the statement that you would not change your mind even if clear and convincing evidence were presented to you that you were wrong.

That you say you wouldn't change your mind even if proved wrong means you couldn't care less about the truth. You just want it your way for no better reason than "because".

So there really is no reason to debate with you because you are not debating. You are preaching.

Yes I did say that I would not change my mind no matter what about Marijuana being legalized. Why should I if I am convinced that it is wrong?

What is happening here is that you guys seem to get annoyed by the fact that I do not believe that it should be legalized and seem to want me to accept that it should.

I say again I can't because I have not been convinced that it would be beneficial....... :wink:

Diana

[Lonewulf]

Yes I did say that I would not change my mind no matter what about Marijuana being legalized. Why should I if I am convinced that it is wrong?

Because a debate shouldn't be a one-way street? You won't hear our points, and you expect us to hear yours? That's preaching. I do not like being preached to.

What is happening here is that you guys seem to get annoyed by the fact that I do not believe that it should be legalized and seem to want me to accept that it should.

*sigh*

Do you really think that's why we're annoyed? I know that I'm annoyed because of your, "I cannot be convinced, so I just wasted your time" attitude.

I say again I can't because I have not been convinced that it would be beneficial....... :wink:

And I haven't been convinced that it is harmful. I also haven't been convinced that all breeds of Marijuana are automatically of the same potency and effect, whether short or long term.

Come back when you're actually willing to debate, why don't you?