[valis]

Originally Posted by Drabdr

It's the same as the yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I've always wondered about the corollary to that, yelling 'movie' in a crowded firehouse.

just kidding, back the the same old debate about pot.

cheers!

[ckphilli]

Originally Posted by Drabdr

I tend to agree with the others.You really have to be careful with this line of logic.It's the same as the yelling fire in a crowded theater. There are limits to our freedoms.

I fail to see where anyone has made a case that society would be better off making it legal.

I agree as well. I don't have a problem with weed, but others do (society). Therefore, the majority rules in this case. We have a government for a reason. That's not conformity, it's fact...IMO.

The negative effects outweigh the positives also; again, IMO. Take pot away from a pothead and they become moody. Some have headaches. People who smoke pot are not always "mellow" either, that's a fallacy. Also, let's not forget motivation.

[ekim68]

Motivation? Do you personally know anyone who is a pothead? Just curious..

[ckphilli]

Originally Posted by ekim68

Motivation? Do you personally know anyone who is a pothead? Just curious..

Not currently. But in years past I knew A LOT. The motivation thing goes both ways also...some people smoke and build a house to perfect specifications...others smoke and watch cartoons; just examples of course.

[ekim68]

Did you ever wonder why Big Pharma is against this? A few books written about this...

(People will have their drugs, one way or the other, IMO..)

[valis]

Originally Posted by ekim68

Did you ever wonder why Big Pharma is against this? A few books written about this...

(People will have their drugs, one way or the other, IMO..)

hasn't it kinda been that way, maybe since the dawn of time?

[ekim68]

But you have to remember, a lot of those drugs are natural...Such as singing the right note in front of an audience...Or playing the best lick on the guitar...

[ckphilli]

Originally Posted by ekim68

Did you ever wonder why Big Pharma is against this? A few books written about this...

(People will have their drugs, one way or the other, IMO..)

Oh yea...Big Pharma would lose it if it couldn't get a piece of the pie.

And yes, I agree people will find their drugs.

[ckphilli]

Originally Posted by valis

hasn't it kinda been that way, maybe since the dawn of time?

I had a REALLY good one for this. But I'm going to keep it to myself.

[Murtag]

I'm against it.. and here is my little (lol) list of reasons
---
The short term effect of it, you can have Distorted perception of sight, sound, time, touch, etc..
Problems with memory and/or learning
Loss of coordination
Trouble thinking and problem solving
Increase in heart rate + lower blood pressure

When it is taken in high doses, it will most likely cause some of the following:
Hallucinations
Impaired Memory
Delusions
Disorientation, etc.
(All the above conditions can be very dangerous to the user, and anyone whom they interact with, e.g. driving while high would have somewhat the same effect as alcohol would)

Minutes after smoking, your risk of having a heart attack rise 4x within the first hour.

Marijuana can cause Acute Chest Illness (ACI)
increased risk of lung infection
and obstruct airway.

It contains many more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke (this is the stuff that gives you cancer) and you are also 3 times more likely to develop head/neck cancer than other people.

I do agree that alcohol and cigarettes are bad, and I don't know why they are legal, but if you want to kill yourself with these things then that is your problem. I don't think other people should have to smell it and suffer the effects from it and whatnot (2nd hand smoke etc.)

Note

I have taken, and passed 6 semesters of health classes, each having at least 3 to 4 chapters of drugs, marijuana, tobacco, alcohol, etc.
Passed a D.A.R.E. class (2 semester course that teaches you about drugs and the effects)
Certified CPR op. (had to learn about the adverse effects smoking has on CPR recip. etc.)
And I knew a Marijuana smoker for 3 years and I saw the effects it had on him, none of which were good.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Just to let you all know so you don't think I'm speakin' out mah butt

[ckphilli]

Don't think the hallucinations fall under "most likely" Murtag...unless it's laced with another drug.

[ekim68]

Well presented...Welcome to TSG Murtag...I suspect you're waiting for the 4th book of the original trilogy of Eragon, eh?

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by Wino

How about white in both cases?

Good plan!

Originally Posted by wacor

Make no difference

Your a dipstick in red, blue or black

Feel the love!!!

[Paquadez]

Originally Posted by ekim68

But you have to remember, a lot of those drugs are natural...

Lots of things are natural, ekim: such as Belladonna.

As early man stumbled through the un-polluted paradise of Earth, he found many plants and fruits; some looked really enticing.

The men who survived experimental ingestion of fatal plants learned from the death of their brethren.

Now those who went on a sudden high and were not trampled under the feet of Woolly Mammoths () as they stumbled aound with their base instincts and core senses distorted, probably became Shamans, or temprary residents of the Neanderthal equivalent of the Bug House!

Or, of course, probably politicians!



There is a growing and hugely warped conception presently, in Western society: anything "Natural" is good, harmless, beneficial: I believe this to a typical reaction against science, technology and the blot of conspicuous consumerism.

List of "Natural" plants poisonous to man: here:

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by Paquadez

Lots of things are natural, ekim: such as Belladonna.

.......with drops created from the plant being put into women's eyes to dilate them, thus creating a visual effect deemed attractive. Hence the name which translates as "beautiful lady". But goo dfor poison arrows too or any other way of snuffing undesirables.

As early man stumbled through the un-polluted paradise of Earth, he found many plants and fruits; some looked really enticing.

The men who survived experimental ingestion of fatal plants learned from the death of their brethren.

Now those who went on a sudden high and were not trampled under the feet of Woolly Mammoths () as they stumbled aound with their base instincts and core senses distorted, probably became Shamans, or temprary residents of the Neanderthal equivalent of the Bug House!

Or, of course, probably politicians!

I can see how distortion of senses can lead to political careers but would rather propose that such distortions were not drug induced but character traits, rather. I don't know whether the occasional "joint" would have positively cancelled certain traits in the likes of Thatcher or Blair, but it if it had slowed them down somewhat that might have been a boon.

There is a growing and hugely warped conception presently, in Western society: anything "Natural" is good, harmless, beneficial: I believe this to a typical reaction against science, technology and the blot of conspicuous consumerism.

....as a result of which anything synthetic (in the world of medicinal drugs) is deemed "bad". An idiotic concept since "synthetisation" is a major method of procuring a sufficient amount of the erstwhile "natural" drug in a way that matches (growing) mankind's demand.

Quinine being a fine example of exception, since its synthetisation cannot match the amounts gained from the "natural" chinchona tree bark.