Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast
Results 97 to 104 of 123

Thread: toke (Marijuana, Pro or Con)

  1. #97
    Otaku Lady Sasumi may be famous one day Lady Sasumi may be famous one day Lady Sasumi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    133
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I think in someways it might be good, in others it would be bad. A lot more people would be dying early deaths. Because it's not healthy, all it does is serve as a way to make a person feel better, and there are plently of other ways to do that. I really don't see much point in it.

    And my mother is rather addicted to drugs, and let me tell you she is so annoying sometimes. I have to say everything atleast 5 times because she never remembers, she tells me the same old stories about 4 times in the day. Always coughing, moody, depressed. It's not a good thing to be at all. I'd really hate to see more people like that.
    Last edited by Lady Sasumi; May 19, 2005 at 08:18 PM.

  2. #98
    Newbie Dezzy may be famous one day Dezzy may be famous one day Dezzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Brisbane Australia
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    The MJ smoked today is a lot different than in my younger days. The pot these days is more potent than it used to be. Smoking pot when you are younger than 16 sees a 25% chance of psycyatric problems particularly scizophrenia. "Getting out of it" means exactly what it says. Getting out of life and into something alternate. If you need it to have some fun then you should re-examine your life and try to have fun in this reality. I have seen many people brain****ed by this shit and they can't see it happening. Ya only get one brain. Look after it.
    I am Back.........(i think)

  3. #99
    Newbie Mugen may be famous one day Mugen may be famous one day Mugen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    16
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    There are smart stoners, and dumb stoners.

    Smart stoners utilize pot as a tool, for example: Pot can enhance the imagination, and help an artist create a ''masterpiece'' (Of course this is IMO)

    Another example: Smart stoners can utilize the drug to enhance spiritual activities such as meditation etc.:
    ------------------------------
    Those are just some off the top of my head examples..

    Dumb stoners: Brain **** themselves to fit in, to escape reality (on a daily basis), wake and bake, until it just becomes such a habit that it takes more and more to give you the high.
    Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is
    either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of
    himself without that law is both. For a wounded man shall
    say to his assailant, "If I live I will kill you, if I die
    you are forgiven". Such is the Rule of Honor.

  4. #100
    Newbie datapimp may be famous one day datapimp may be famous one day
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    35
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Look back in history and you will find many great people utilized drugs...

    Freud (Cocaine), Dioscorides Pedanius (Pot), Hendrix (EVERYTHING!), Beatles (LSD), Dali (Various Psychedelics), Picasso (Absinthe), Steve Jobs & Bill Gates (LSD) , Edgar Allen Poe (Opium), Stephen King (Cocaine), Eminem (Various), Judy Garland (Amphetamines), Robin Williams (MDMA, Cocaine, Pot) , Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Opium, Cocaine) , Carl Sagan (Cannabis) , Hunter S Thompson (EVERYTHING!) , Jack Nicholson (LSD), Napoleon (Cocaine fortified spirits), Rush Limbaugh (Oxycontin), Arnold Schwartznegger (Pot), Bruce Lee (Pot), Dan Quayle (Pot)...

    Of course there are many more, countless examples of people who led productive lives in spite of recreational drug use. With over thirty million users of illegal drugs in the United States alone, it is obvious that drug users are present in every level of society, including doctors and lawyers, teachers and politicians.

    As should be apparent from the list above, believing that drugs should be legal is not the same thing as believing that drugs are beneficial. Drugs do destroy many lives. However, prohibition only makes matters worse.

    http://www.slatts.fsworld.co.uk/famous.htm

  5. #101
    Otaku Lady Sasumi may be famous one day Lady Sasumi may be famous one day Lady Sasumi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    133
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by datapimp
    Look back in history and you will find many great people utilized drugs...

    Freud (Cocaine), Dioscorides Pedanius (Pot), Hendrix (EVERYTHING!), Beatles (LSD), Dali (Various Psychedelics), Picasso (Absinthe), Steve Jobs & Bill Gates (LSD) , Edgar Allen Poe (Opium), Stephen King (Cocaine), Eminem (Various), Judy Garland (Amphetamines), Robin Williams (MDMA, Cocaine, Pot) , Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Opium, Cocaine) , Carl Sagan (Cannabis) , Hunter S Thompson (EVERYTHING!) , Jack Nicholson (LSD), Napoleon (Cocaine fortified spirits), Rush Limbaugh (Oxycontin), Arnold Schwartznegger (Pot), Bruce Lee (Pot), Dan Quayle (Pot)...

    Of course there are many more, countless examples of people who led productive lives in spite of recreational drug use. With over thirty million users of illegal drugs in the United States alone, it is obvious that drug users are present in every level of society, including doctors and lawyers, teachers and politicians.

    As should be apparent from the list above, believing that drugs should be legal is not the same thing as believing that drugs are beneficial. Drugs do destroy many lives. However, prohibition only makes matters worse.

    http://www.slatts.fsworld.co.uk/famous.htm
    So because all of them did drugs, it's ok to drugs because they led a productive life? So they had a great career, but what about their social life? Drugs mess people up, so that they act differently.

    And yes, some smart people do drugs, however, some smart people do not. Who is more respectable? The ones who do great with out them? Or the ones who do great and use drugs?
    Last edited by Lady Sasumi; May 20, 2005 at 10:58 AM.

  6. #102
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,259
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by datapimp
    A couple hours to look at the links ? It took me less then ten minutes to find what I wanted in said articles, mainly testimony from the AMA (american medical society), APHA (american public health association) and oxford university. These are staterun operations specifically designed to objectivly weigh benefits vs drawbacks... Seems pretty trustworthy to me...
    You're right, it didn't take a couple of hours (though it did take that long to compile this). I'm not impressed with your source.

    When I do research on a subject on-line I have three criterias:
    1. Is the site biased?
    Do they have an obvious aganda? Do they contradict themselves in their message in order to sell a point?

    2. Do they give give quotes out of context?
    Do they provide links to sites where the quotes are taken from? If I go there (or track it down on my own) will the context match what what it is claimed to say?

    3. Are there counter arguements?
    Are there more reliable sources that say something opposite or even show someone's "facts" to be unreliable or made up?

    So if I may apply my criteria one at a time?

    Your post from NORML.
    NORML is a site dedicated to legalizing marijuana across the board. They describe their members as "activists". They push for legal legislation and then try to have any legislation they don't agree with overturned in the courts. When that doesn't work they blame the administration or any other government office involved even when the courts determine those offices are acting inside their administrative duties. Even though on their faq's page they say they want marijuana legalized for everyone (except minors) their press is all about how put upon medical marijuana users are and never mention the fact.

    NORML provides no links for any of their quotes. Many of the organizations they quote are on record as being opposed to the very points they are quoted in support of. Others statement, while quoted accuratly, are used to make points not intended in the origional statement. A medical scientist saying that there should be research done on making medical drugs with cannabis is NOT also saying it should be legalized.

    Considering the bias and the "smoke and mirrors" I found on this site I do NOT consider it reliable.

    In Summery? When I requested medical links I meant from a medical site and not from a lobby group that happens to support your position.


    Concerning "Ecstasy can block cancer growth"

    When reading the article I found:
    However, the researchers stressed that the use of ecstasy was not so straightforward - the dose required to block cancer growth was so high it would kill the patient.
    Followed by:
    "Perhaps by breaking down the actions of this designer drug we can extract its cancer killing properties from more general toxic effects associated with its use.
    There is a big difference in extracting a medicine from a drug and using the drug itself.

    Since most of the article is actually about the use of prozac drugs I consider the headline to be sensationalized and missleading (biased), though still factual on the progress of cancer fighting drugs.


    Concerning " Doctors 'recommend cannabis use'"

    Another press article with a missleading title pushing an agenda (bias).
    She added: "I suspect doctors do sometimes say to patients that there's nothing else they can currently give them to relieve their pain, but that cannabis could work."

    A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association said: "We are not aware of this happening".

    You have another article on ecstasy but even it said that it was contraversial. I am a little curious though. All your articles are from the UK. Is there a reason you're not quoteing sources in the US other then an activist site?



    Quote Originally Posted by datapimp
    You still have not answered why it is you have this current stance towards cannabis, care to explain ? I would greatly appreciate a peek into why you believe what you do...
    You really haven't read the thread have you.
    Quote Originally Posted by datapimp
    Friends got in trouble ?
    Yes, I have had several friends destroy their lives this way.
    Quote Originally Posted by datapimp
    Family ?
    Some extended.
    Quote Originally Posted by datapimp
    Republican partys order ?
    very funny....

    In my experience those who support drug legalization have fallen into three catagories; users, people who are gullible enough to believe it's harmless, and intellectuals who have never actualy seen the stuff.
    And those who don't believe it should be legalized fall into two catagories; Those who know people who have used them, and those who no longer use.

    I find that rather significant.


    I also find it significant that according to LenMiyata's link there is on-going research being done on medical drugs from THC. Interestingly enough that research is being done by the same people that activists sites, who want marijauna and other drugs legalized, are constantly ripping on for "obstructing" the use of medicine. It just reconfirmes my belief that activists are using a legitimate concern in order to hide their true objectives because they know it's not societally acceptable.

    Other parts of the link I found interesting.... " There are no FDA-approved medications that are smoked. For one thing, smoking is generally a poor way to deliver medicine. It is difficult to administer safe, regulated dosages of medicines in smoked form. Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. There are four times the level of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette."


    As for your historical list you might want to take much of it in CONTEXT!
    *sheesh*
    At the time of Freud, Edgar Allen Poe, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and Napoleon the effects of drugs listed were either misunderstood or just becoming understood. You're talking about a time where it was believed that eating mushrooms could lead to celestial visions of God.

    As for the artists you listed...there are many who would argue with you about their greatness.
    As an artist I can assure you that no matter what the nuevou cliche or the rock world thinks the rest of the artistic community looks down on those who have to get "inspiration" from a "trip".

    BTW, nice job lumping all types of conditions from alcohol to an admitted addiction to a perscription drug into one point. I'm afraid however such tactics are counter productive with me.
    (Now in chorus: If your friends jumped off a cliff...)



    Summery in-total: Your refences still fail to provide medically unbiased facts. I am convinced however that it is just a matter of time before we have medical, prescribable, THC derived, drugs for those who need them. I am also convinced that activists pushing medical marijuana and legalization are trying to use it as a gateway to general legalization of any mind-altering drug that is currently illegal.

    Or in other words, smoking marijuana is really bad for you.
    Last edited by Arrianna; May 20, 2005 at 11:32 AM.

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  7. #103
    Newbie datapimp may be famous one day datapimp may be famous one day
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    35
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    At the time of Freud, Edgar Allen Poe, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and Napoleon the effects of drugs listed were either misunderstood or just becoming understood. You're talking about a time where it was believed that eating mushrooms could lead to celestial visions of God.
    Who says they can't ?

    I never said marijuana wasn't bad for you, I quite understand that it is. I just don't think it's any worse then the other 'legal' drugs out there such as alcohol and tobacco. I'm glad I understand your points now, but I still don't understand how a drug that causes major liver and brain damage and kills 50x more people per year can be legal while a drug that has been deemed much less harmful (by our own government research! I'll find that for you as well..) can still warrent prosecution.

    As for Napoleon, Freud and Poe not understanding the pharmacology of said drugs? I don't quite agree. The chemists who made and prescribed these potent drugs had nearly the same information we do now, just less of it. It's not like morphine has changed at all from 1949 to now, it simply comes in better packaging. People died from drug addiction then, just like they do now, the only difference was that there was personal freedom to self-prescribe.

    There is a thousand more references from accredited medical universities and docters that cannabis is a PROVEN medical treatment that WORKS. You really think a bunch of stoners could rally togather enough people to get a drug legalized that doesn't have apparant medical benefits ? Go look around, i'm positive there is more objective sources then NORML for you to look at that say the exact same thing.

    I personally don't use cannabis more then a couple times per year (12?) and can honestly say I have seen no drawbacks with regulated usage. I can attest to how much it helps people who are in major pain, or are suffering from cancer. I have seen this with my own eyes, and while you may not agree (which is fine) I could never go back to looking at it as 'just another drug' again.

    It is difficult to administer safe, regulated dosages of medicines in smoked form. Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. There are four times the level of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette."
    It's almost impossible to get to a dangerous dosage of THC, and would have to be facilitated by a potent extraction. It's true that some people have a negative reaction to cannabis (as they do with many OTC medication, opiates, benzodiazipines, pick your legal poison) but that is beside the point. Most (excuse me, ALL) of the patients I know currently enrolled in the Medical Marijuana program choose to eat the medicine. (Bryan chooses to smoke his, as well) I know there is no way in hell sally (cancer ) could smoke anything with the condition she is in, therefor she chooses to either make tea or have it cooked for her. Besides that, there is now technology (vaporizers) which take most of tar and other carcinogenic chemicals mostly out of the equasion.

    Cannabis vaporizers are designed to let users inhale active cannabinoids while avoiding harmful smoke toxins. They do so by heating cannabis to a temperature of 180 - 200° C (356° - 392° F), just below the point of combustion where smoke is produced. At this point, THC and other medically active cannabinoids are emitted with little or none of the carcinogenic tars and noxious gases found in smoke. Many medical marijuana patients who find smoked marijuana highly irritating report effective relief inhaling through vaporizers. Users who are concerned about the respiratory hazards of smoking are strongly advised to use vaporizers. Alternative devices, such as waterpipes, have been shown to be ineffective at reducing the tars in marijuana smoke.
    It really is like simply inhaling a warm breath of air...

    Still, I understand your points and i'm glad you responded. I'll do my best to post a few more studies directly from the AMA and medical journals.
    Last edited by datapimp; May 20, 2005 at 01:36 PM.

  8. #104
    Newbie datapimp may be famous one day datapimp may be famous one day
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    35
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Sorry to go offtopic with other drugs, cannabis really is the subject at hand. That was simply an example to say that just because you choose a different lifestyle it does not mean your life will go down the drain. It's quite possible to live a long and healthy life, even while using, but please don't confuse 'using' with 'abusing'. It's one thing to smoke a joint on the weekend, it's quite another to wake up and smoke smoke smoke smoke until the the moon rises.

    Perhaps I just live in a very liberal state, because most of the people I talk to either support legalization or are smokers themselfs.

    The strange thing is that my best friend (currently enrolled at medical school, full scholorship) is prescribed a benzodiazipine called 'xanax' by his docter, this drug could literally kill him if he took it at the dosage the docter recommends and then stopped taking it. He would go into seizures and perhaps die, yet this is hailed as a more acceptable treatment for anxiety then cannabis. Why ? He chooses, thankfully, not to take it frequently enough to become addicted or suffer those kind of negative consequences but for many people it is their life.

    I'm not trying to say 'drugs are good', I'm trying to say they arn't all that bad either. Obviously there is exceptions, hard drugs with high addiction rates (though if you look at statistics, more people give up heroin then tobacco) such as meth, h, or coke. I really don't think these kind of drugs can be used responsibly at all. I'm sure some rare poeple can handle them, but it's definitly a minority. You have to approach each objectivly.

Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts