Marijuana

[squirrelTactics]

I've seen this guy named "keepweedillegal" posting in some topics, and in every single one, somebody begins to argue the legality of marijuana. This has often derailed the conversation, but I'm very interested in everyone's views on the subject.

That is, if it isn't against the forum rules to discuss it.

[Johan]

I blame cotton growers.

[Typical Michael]

As long as its illegal and keeps me from getting a job after a urine test, I am not going to do it.

[Vandabo]

I'm not a proponent of it, but I really wish we'd spend less effort cracking down on it. There are a lot of other things plaguing society that I'd rather the government work on first.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Legalize it and tax it to hell.

[shunoshi]

Legalize it and tax it to hell.

This.

Want to relieve some of the national debt?

[diablopath]

I'm fine with it.
Not a daily user, but I dabble.

[squirrelTactics]

Legalize it and tax it to hell.

If you overtax, what is there to stop the weed market that already exists? A fear of imprisonment? If you make marijuana legal, but "tax the hell out of it", then there is nothing to squelch the illegal selling that already exists.

[Jeffool]

Never used it, and have no plans for it. I think it being illegal is stupid, but I just don't care enough to fight for its legalization.If you overtax, what is there to stop the weed market that already exists? A fear of imprisonment? If you make marijuana legal, but "tax the hell out of it", then there is nothing to squelch the illegal selling that already exists.Sure there is, first legality, but mostly ease of acquisition. I'd be much cheaper to grow your own vegetable garden, but the vast majority of people don't. And if a seller isn't charging the tax, they could revoke their license for sale (I assume you'd have one, like alcohol,) and they'd get massive fines.

So, instead of finding a local farmer, I think most people would just run down to the store and buy a pack. I mean, why risk a big fine when you can just pay over the counter?

[Siraris]

I don't smoke due to a freak out that I had a while ago, but I think the illegalization of Marijuana is ludicrous. The main reason being is that alcohol is legal. I know a lot of people on here love alcohol, but alcohol is dangerous. Thousands of people are killed every year either in drunk driving incidents, alcohol poisoning, or in some sort of violent related crime due to alcohol.

Weed, for all intents and purposes, does no harm to your body, is shown to have medicinal purposes, cannot be overdosed on, and if you smoke, you are pretty unlikely to go drive because you don't feel like doing anything.

If alcohol is legal, weed should be too. It's 100% a double standard.

As a side note, it would also help with drug related crime. I have heard from numerous sources that the only way to stop the drug war is to legalize drugs, and this would be a first step. Just treat it like cigarettes; if you want to smoke, do it away from others. People who want to smoke weed will do it regardless, just like people who smoke cigarettes. Why make it such a headache for everyone to do so?

[rinichanraar]

If you overtax, what is there to stop the weed market that already exists? A fear of imprisonment? If you make marijuana legal, but "tax the hell out of it", then there is nothing to squelch the illegal selling that already exists.

Laziness, maybe. I think some people (definitely not all) would be content paying more because of the convenience of purchasing it legally at a store.

With that said, I'd like it legalized, but that's not to say I'd always buy it legally. I also agree with Siraris that alcohol is much more dangerous anyway.

EDIT: Jeff, I saw that ninja edit. Now it just looks like I copied what you said! :p

[KingGorilla]

1. Pot is effectively legal in most states anyway. In Wisconsin for example illegal parking carries a heavier fine than pot possession. The technical term is decriminalized. In most urban centers that I have been to, you are more likely to be taken to task by police for walking with an opened beer in hand than a joint.
2. Medicinal marijuanna is a hot topic on many ballots this year for states. You may not want your kids to smoke. But I think most of us can agree that people with serious pain brought on by diseases like cancer deserve whatever help they can get.
3. This page is on the World Wide Web, people from all over the world have access to it, pot is not illegal everywhere.

[jeffbax]

Prohibition is a horrendously failed policy that does nothing but harm to millions of people. Its retarded. Additionally the allegations it has no medical benefits are stunning.

[iHap]

Not this topic again...

[KingGorilla]

Not this topic again...

Abortion, gay marriage, the Xbox breaks a lot, Blu-ray will fail.

[squirrelTactics]

1. Pot is effectively legal in most states anyway. In Wisconsin for example illegal parking carries a heavier fine than pot possession. The technical term is decriminalized. In most urban centers that I have been to, you are more likely to be taken to task by police for walking with an opened beer in hand than a joint.
<snip>
3. This page is on the World Wide Web, people from all over the world have access to it, pot is not illegal everywhere.


1. You can still be arrested in the United States for marijuana possession, calling it "effectively legal" is a gross overstatement.

2. How is discussing the legality of marijuana narrowing it to only the United States? Obviously the U.S. weed market is going to take up the majority of the discussion, but marijuana legality itself is applicable worldwide.

[Whunpo]

Most of my friends smoke. I haven't partaken personally, but I doubt I will resist much longer. Even my parents said they didn't really care if I smoked. As long as I did it safely and responsibly.

[Lance Uppercut]

I was a stoner. Stopped doing it a couple months after I started jiu-jitsu because it did a number on my cardio. I'm not going to say that it's harmless, but I've never heard of anyone dying or getting sick from it. On the other hand, I see people with emphysema or cirrhosis in the hospital quite a few times.

[ShivaX]

I was a stoner. Stopped doing it a couple months after I started jiu-jitsu because it did a number on my cardio. I'm not going to say that it's harmless, but I've never heard of anyone dying or getting sick from it. On the other hand, I see people with emphysema or cirrhosis in the hospital quite a few times.

Well inhaling smoke isn't going to be good for your lungs no matter how you look at it. Thing is its not like people are going to be smoking three packs of pot cigs a day like they do tobacco and it isn't a physically addictive substance.

[Superman's Dead]

1. You can still be arrested in the United States for marijuana possession, calling it "effectively legal" is a gross overstatement.

But a lot of times you can just get a fine as opposed to jail time. Look at Art Garfunkel! =)

...I really just like referencing him. I have no opinion.

[Troggles]

Abortion, gay marriage, the Xbox breaks a lot, Blu-ray will fail.

And who would give a fuck if everyone was smoking weed? I think that once we get this topic resolved that no other topic will matter again.

[Jeffool]

EDIT: Jeff, I saw that ninja edit. Now it just looks like I copied what you said! :pYeah, my 'posted time' is a minute behind yours, but mine is still read first, so nyah! :D

[TrackZero]

Weed, for all intents and purposes, does no harm to your body, is shown to have medicinal purposes, cannot be overdosed on, and if you smoke, you are pretty unlikely to go drive because you don't feel like doing anything.


To be fair on the subject, from someone who's pro-legalization and was chronic for about 8 years. It is carcinogenic and will cause lung cancer, eventually. But it's a rather moot point so long as cigarettes and cigars are legal. And you're correct in the evaluations of it against alcohol for societal woes, weed is far less damaging in all respects and is a "cash crop" just sitting there begging for taxation and legal use. It's all quite silly.

[Everyone vs Dinosaurs]

I don't smoke due to a freak out that I had a while ago, but I think the illegalization of Marijuana is ludicrous. The main reason being is that alcohol is legal. I know a lot of people on here love alcohol, but alcohol is dangerous. Thousands of people are killed every year either in drunk driving incidents, alcohol poisoning, or in some sort of violent related crime due to alcohol.

Weed, for all intents and purposes, does no harm to your body, is shown to have medicinal purposes, cannot be overdosed on, and if you smoke, you are pretty unlikely to go drive because you don't feel like doing anything.

If alcohol is legal, weed should be too. It's 100% a double standard.

As a side note, it would also help with drug related crime. I have heard from numerous sources that the only way to stop the drug war is to legalize drugs, and this would be a first step. Just treat it like cigarettes; if you want to smoke, do it away from others. People who want to smoke weed will do it regardless, just like people who smoke cigarettes. Why make it such a headache for everyone to do so?

That is essentially what I believe.

Europe does everything right. Lets copy them.

[harle]

I say legalize it.

Like others have said, if Alcohol is legal, there is no reason why Marijuana should be illegal.

[VerseD]

I think it only makes sense to legalize it, and I really can't understand people so vehement for prohibition, especially when they extend it to hemp products. Thanks a lot 1930s paper industry and 1970s culture wars.

[Gwinny]

I've never smoked any. I don't know if I particularly want to, but Carl Sagan was (as I understand) a fairly regular user, and that's endorsement enough for me!

Legalize it, and treat it like alcohol. I would prefer some laws about where it could be used, like in one's own house or well-ventilated or outdoor areas, as I'm not interested in contact highs. (Do those actually exist?) I'm a stick in the mud, but I don't think we should limit anyone else's fun, and it can't possibly be more dangerous than alcohol.

[Bone]

I've never smoked any. I don't know if I particularly want to, but Carl Sagan was (as I understand) a fairly regular user, and that's endorsement enough for me!Billions and billions of... what, now?


I would prefer some laws about where it could be used, like in one's own house or well-ventilated or outdoor areas, as I'm not interested in contact highs. (Do those actually exist?)They do. Being in an enclosed room with a lot of pot smoke will have an effect on you, especially if you don't smoke it a lot (or ever).

It should be legal, but it likely won't be in this country for a long time. The government would make tons of money; farmers could finally provide hemp in a much more efficient way for fiber, paper, and clothing; jails could have more room and law enforcement would be able to focus on real crimes. It just makes way too much sense for our politicians to do it.

[boratika]

Oh don't get me started on the environmental degradation that could have been so much less if people could have been growing (low THC) hemp, as an alternative to what was actually used. And all it's uses. It's like the wonder plant of the future, today-ee.

If you overtax, what is there to stop the weed market that already exists? A fear of imprisonment? If you make marijuana legal, but "tax the hell out of it", then there is nothing to squelch the illegal selling that already exists.
I'd presume it would be analagous to alcohol and tobacco.
I think it only makes sense to legalize it, and I really can't understand people so vehement for prohibition, especially when they extend it to hemp products. Thanks a lot 1930s paper industry and 1970s culture wars.

Don't forget Dupont and nylon. I know what I'd rather be wearing between hemp and nylon.

[darkbase]

Wow, still no sign of our new troll and the thread title and OP even bares his user title!

I've smoked a handful of times, didn't really care for it, but I'll defend it if it ever comes up in conversation. Reason being: my family consists of hard working, ethical/moral (yet not religious!) southerners and are a mixed bag of conservative and liberal, but pretty much everyone smokes pot on a somewhat common basis, even into their 40s-50s. I wasn't told until I was 16 but it made a lot of sense. I severely look down upon other (harder) drugs, though, and since I've got Irish and Cherokee in the family, we of course have a few alcoholics and drinking-related deaths. Can't really say the same for marijuana.

[Disgustipated]

I smoked tonight so maybe I'm a bit biased but...

Legalize this shit. Alcohol is 10x more dangerous, and marijuana has plenty of other uses than recreational drug use. It's really not that bad. I've smoked it less than 10 times but I've yet to see how alcohol could be legal, yet this is not.

[Slack3r78]

Wow, we're busting out all the formerly taboo topics tonight.

I have absolutely zero problem with people using and have some very close friends who could be described as relatively heavy users. It's not for me, but whatever. I don't pretend my vice (hanging out in bars and drinking) is any better than theirs. The fact that this relatively harmless drug is such a drain in terms of enforcement is absurd.

[Disgustipated]

Wow, we're busting out all the formerly taboo topics tonight.

I have absolutely zero problem with people using and have some very close friends who could be described as relatively heavy users. It's not for me, but whatever. I don't pretend my vice (hanging out in bars and drinking) is any better than theirs. The fact that this relatively harmless drug is such a drain in terms of enforcement is absurd.

Absolutely 100% agree with you. We spend millions busting people for this drug? We could probably make billions off of it if we just legalized it!

[Ghost Rider]

It seems as if I'll be going against the trend of this topic but I'm not for legalizing it at all. I will admit right now I don't know much about medical studies relating to it, so I probably won't be able to debate over any positive aspects .

Ever since I saw the effects both of them could have on people when i was younger, all I can say is I am against alcohol and recreational drugs 100%.

[Squidbot]

8HcXcYlF3_0

[shodan2020]

I don't smoke due to a freak out that I had a while ago, but I think the illegalization of Marijuana is ludicrous. The main reason being is that alcohol is legal. I know a lot of people on here love alcohol, but alcohol is dangerous. Thousands of people are killed every year either in drunk driving incidents, alcohol poisoning, or in some sort of violent related crime due to alcohol.

Weed, for all intents and purposes, does no harm to your body, is shown to have medicinal purposes, cannot be overdosed on, and if you smoke, you are pretty unlikely to go drive because you don't feel like doing anything.

If alcohol is legal, weed should be too. It's 100% a double standard.

As a side note, it would also help with drug related crime. I have heard from numerous sources that the only way to stop the drug war is to legalize drugs, and this would be a first step. Just treat it like cigarettes; if you want to smoke, do it away from others. People who want to smoke weed will do it regardless, just like people who smoke cigarettes. Why make it such a headache for everyone to do so?

My name is Shodan2020 and I approve this message. I smoke the reefers every once in awhile, but I never keep any of it on me. I have friends that have it and like to share. :)

[Lithium Flower]

Legalise it!

[mesh]

Just like cigars, cigarettes and anything else with second hand hazards, it shouldn't be legal. If you remove that aspect it could be considered.

[Savok]

Legalize it and tax it to hell.
More importantly (and as much as I'm normally against such things) regulate it.

A lot of problems with modern weed (which is a narcotic at this point) is that it's either laced with something or grown in some bizarre hydroponic thing which makes the drug component a hundred times stronger. Basically make sure they don't end up like cigarettes and full of shit that isn't tobacco and make sure the drug concentrations don't exceed a certain percentage.

People would pay the higher prices in shops for the comparative safety to the cheaper stuff you'd get from some kid in a hooded jumper.

[LordDon]

<-- Another voice in the "legalize, tax, and regulate" crowd.

[SilentScreams]

I've smoked it once. It wasn't for me.
With that said, I think people should be able to decide what to put in their own bodies as long as they're not harming anybody, and by that logic, alcohol should be more illegal than marijuana.

[roboninja]

Make it legal, I should be able to buy a 4-pack at the corner store. I smoke very regularly, a few times a week. I love sniping in TF2 after a bowl, headshots galore ;)

As for the whole "people would still sell it illegally" argument against legalization? Unfounded, if you ask me. Do you realize how much is currently paid for weed? Something akin to a 20-pack of cigarettes costs around $100 (give or take, just a rough estimate). So, if prices were kept sane ($10 for my 4-pack mentioned above), the legal choice would be the cheaper choice.

[ADDGirl]

I have asthma so I don't smoke it because I don't want to ya know Die... but I think it should be legalized

[Rock Bandit]

Ever since I saw the effects both of them could have on people when i was younger, all I can say is I am against alcohol and recreational drugs 100%.

See, even though I disagree I can respect your stance because it's consistant. Thumbs up.

On-topic; I don't smoke but I don't have anything against legalizing it. As long as the penalties for smoking and driving are nice and severe because that shit is inexcusable.

[Bone]

A lot of problems with modern weed (which is a narcotic at this point) is that it's either laced with somethingThis is not typical and is no different than if someone spiked your drink. Don't deal with people who do this.


or grown in some bizarre hydroponic thing which makes the drug component a hundred times stronger. Hydroponics is a widely accepted form of growing that is used in all kinds of vegetable and flower growth. It's not bizarre, it's just a way of growing without soil. And while it makes a plant generally more potent, a hundred times is hyperbole. It's just growing it in ideal conditions.

[squirrelTactics]

As long as the penalties for smoking and driving are nice and severe because that shit is inexcusable.


I disagree. Driving while high does not impair the driver to an inexcusable degree. It is not comparable to driving drunk, and should not be punished as so.

[LongStepMantis]

I'm not a proponent of it, but I really wish we'd spend less effort cracking down on it. There are a lot of other things plaguing society that I'd rather the government work on first.

I was watching TV last night and saw one of the many "Don't smoke pot" ads, and it got me thinking. Pot and meth are the only two drugs they run ads for (here at least) telling you not to do them.

Meth, I get. It's about the worst thing you can get into, and anyone who does so might as well kiss their lives goodbye. A few of my former friends turned into meth-heads, and I don't even know them anymore. They lie, steal, are always getting arrested, and one of them robbed his own mother at knife point.

Pot...well, I used to be a heavy toker, but I'm reformed. That being said, the worst thing pot really did to me was make me gain weight. I would put it in the same category as cigarettes personally. Bad for you, but it's not a "It will ruin your life!" drug for most people, unless you just have zero self-control.

Anyways, I see why they do anti-meth ads, I don't really get why they care enough about pot to run ads considering they don't run any anti-crack ads here, or "Don't use cocaine" or anything like that. Why is that?
I've known several people who ended up blowing almost all of their money on crack or cocaine, yet no one talks about it, here at least.

Seems to me there are plenty of drugs worse than pot...hell, almost all of them are. So why waste time going after pot when there are more important (and dangerous) drugs to worry about? Just curious I guess.

[boratika]

Wow, we're busting out all the formerly taboo topics tonight.
Soooooooo.....

Anal sex.


Oh who am I kidding? It's the internet, it's taboo to not get all about the anal sex.
I disagree. Driving while high does not impair the driver to an inexcusable degree. It is not comparable to driving drunk, and should not be punished as so.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. It's isn't consistently bad like alcohol, but it's still not a responsible thing to do. You really don't want be in a car when the driver starts having a freak out *bad memory shudder* or starts falling asleep at wheel.

But really, I'm not a big fan of people driving after drinking coffee so maybe I'm just a bit to hard-lined.

[Bone]

Soooooooo.....

Anal sex.


Oh who am I kidding? It's the internet, it's taboo to not get all about the anal sex.

http://www.lucid-tv.com/044.jpg


I'm going to have to disagree with you here. It's isn't consistently bad like alcohol, but it's still not a responsible thing to do. You really don't want be in a car when the driver starts having a freak out *bad memory shudder* or starts falling asleep at wheel.
Agreed. You aren't as likely to drive fast and reckless, but you are clearly impaired and reaction times are dangerously slowed.

[Vulture]

legalize it. (period)

i have yet to see a single strong argument that supports its current prohibition. all the arguments i have seen have come from people who don't know better, industry heads that would lose out financially, politicians who use it as a tool for approval points, and people who are just pre-disposed to be against any sort of substance including alcohol. the arguments they bring fourth are supported by misleading studies, incorrect notions, or singularly bad personal experiences.

anyone out there have a good reason why it should stay illegal? speak up! i want to hear it.


really, i want to hear a good reason why not.

[boratika]

Meth, I get. It's about the worst thing you can get into, and anyone who does so might as well kiss their lives goodbye. A few of my former friends turned into meth-heads, and I don't even know them anymore. They lie, steal, are always getting arrested, and one of them robbed his own mother at knife point.

I agree, they should ban pseudo-ephedrine. That's a war on a drug that you can win and in the process save so much heart-ache and destruction from so many lives.

What really drove the issue home to me was a doctor telling me "I wish people were still using heroin". He explained that the local crack-down on heroin had been almost completely successful in ending use of the drug, but that it just seemed to result in people moving to meth. Overall the damage done by meth, personally and socially is far above that of heroin, but the selfish reason he hated it was because he had to deal with overdoses. For one you have to make sure someone doesn't quietly slip away, for the other you have to deal with a violenty psychotic episode.

You know something's bad when it makes people long for the better days of heroin.

[Rock Bandit]

I disagree. Driving while high does not impair the driver to an inexcusable degree. It is not comparable to driving drunk, and should not be punished as so.

I just feel it's very irresponsible to get behind the wheel under the influence of any substance that impairs your judgement whether that be alcohol, pot, or prescription drugs. To me any degree is inexcusable, if you know you're going to partake it's your responsibility to make sure you will have no need to get behind the wheel beforehand.

That's the trade-off, you're free to smoke or drink yourself stupid as long as you bring no harm to anyone but yourself.

[Lance Uppercut]

A lot of problems with modern weed (which is a narcotic at this point) is that it's either laced with something or grown in some bizarre hydroponic thing which makes the drug component a hundred times stronger.

That only means that you can smoke less to get the effect you want. Most stoners have a comfort zone. I don't like smoking too much that I can barely move, and I'd adjust how much I smoke depending on how good my stash was.

[Slack3r78]

Basically make sure they don't end up like cigarettes and full of shit that isn't tobacco and make sure the drug concentrations don't exceed a certain percentage.
Why? Even if you were hooked up to an IV drip of absolutely pure THC, it'd be near impossible to overdose on it.

[shunoshi]

I have asthma so I don't smoke it because I don't want to ya know Die... but I think it should be legalized

This is why brownies were invented. ;)

[TheKeck]

I am staunchly against drugs, but if cigarettes, alcohol, and such are legal...

[LongStepMantis]

Why? Even if you were hooked up to an IV drip of absolutely pure THC, it'd be near impossible to overdose on it.

I read one time that to OD on THC (through pot use) you would have to smoke something like several TONS in 15 minutes. Even if that was physically possible, you would die from lack of oxygen/smoke inhalation before you ever OD'ed on it.

I am staunchly against drugs, but if cigarettes, alcohol, and such are legal...

That's my only real gripe with the way pot is persecuted. I'm not even saying it should be legalized.
But what sense does it make to say "Poison A is fine, go buy some and have fun...but don't get any of that Poison B!" It's so hypocritical.

[biosc1]

There are pros and cons to any argument. Up here, my argument is, before they even touch legalizing marijuana, they should allow alcohol to be sold in grocery stores like in most states.

Our government actually has licensed marijuana farms for growing medicinal supply. Unfortunately, it is a less than stellar quality of crop :(

I used to smoke when I was younger. I can't pull up any studies that are pro or against it, but the main reason I'm against it is because it stinks. Probably a smell I notice more because of the banning of cigarette smoking in a lot of public and private places up here.

I don't smoke cigarettes or marijuana, my only vice is alcohol, so I really don't have a say in what people want to put into their body. Just don't drive.

[National Kato]

You really don't want be in a car when the driver starts having a freak out *bad memory shudder* or starts falling asleep at wheel.

You know what? If you're prone to 'freaking out' after a toke or two, you shouldn't be smoking pot. Period. I don't know any regular, responsible smokers who freak out on weed.

[Deunnero]

Government should long ago have entered the market. A huge revenue source can be had.

[crazyD]

People would pay the higher prices in shops for the comparative safety to the cheaper stuff you'd get from some kid in a hooded jumper.

Well, there is currently quite the black market mark up. If it was legalized and taxed to shit, it would still probably be cheaper.

[boratika]

You know what? If you're prone to 'freaking out' after a toke or two, you shouldn't be smoking pot. Period. I don't know any regular, responsible smokers who freak out on weed.

It was the first and only time I'd seen the person get paranoid while high. I always assumed it was situationally triggered, in that particular instance.

[Mr. Murphy]

I wish I could come up with something intelligent to add to this conversation, but I am just waaaay too stoned.

[DylonCorp]

I've explained my whole recovering alcoholic thing before, but basically any night I want to unwind chemical I have two choices.

1) Take a chance at getting a possession/consumption of narcotic ticket.

or

2) Ruin my life again.



So, yeah. Legalize it. Douchebags. ;)

[Savok]

Why? Even if you were hooked up to an IV drip of absolutely pure THC, it'd be near impossible to overdose on it.
ODing isn't the problem...

[Slack3r78]

ODing isn't the problem...
Then you're going to be more specific as to why you think drug concentration would need to be tightly regulated.

[Savok]

Because it's a mind altering drug, and too much too soon will not react well with some people.

Trust me I know about what mind altering drugs can do to people, permanently.

[Bone]

Because it's a mind altering drug, and too much too soon will not react well with some people.

Trust me I know about what mind altering drugs can do to people, permanently.

You would be mistaken. Look into how THC works on the brain (by attaching to receptors) as opposed to how alcohol, cocaine, and just about any other drug works. It's completely different.

[TrackZero]

Because it's a mind altering drug, and too much too soon will not react well with some people.

Trust me I know about what mind altering drugs can do to people, permanently.

I'll second Bone on this. Don't make assumptions in to how drugs work or generalize them.

[rinichanraar]

It was the first and only time I'd seen the person get paranoid while high. I always assumed it was situationally triggered, in that particular instance.

I've actually once (only once) seen someone get really paranoid while she was high. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because we were listening to Radiohead's "Like Spinning Plates" backwards in a friend's dorm room that she'd never been in before. Or maybe it's because it was the biggest bong hit I'd ever seen in my life. I'm not sure, but it was the oddest, most bizarre thing I had ever seen.

This is why brownies were invented. ;)

My boyfriend baked me brownies once a long time ago, but I remember them not being concentrated enough. They ended up just making me really sleepy while I was playing Halo one day. But that's not to say I haven't had better brownies since then.

[Scaryfaced]

Paranoia is a regular side effect when you smoke, but it decreases the more you do it. "Freak outs" are normally bouts of extreme paranoia. That, coupled with the fact that THC speeds up your heart rate, can lead to people feeling short of breath or like they're having a panic attack. It's all psychosematic, though. Your body's not reacting to the drug, it's reacting to your extreme emotions that weed tends to enhance. If anyone you know has truely freaked out, the weed was probably spiked with something. This happened to me once and it was a horrible experience. It was either soaked in PCP or embalming fluid, but needless to say, it was no bueno.

I say legalize it, make it government controlled and start producing grades with different THC content. Use the weaker strands to produce packs of joints that could be sold at liquor stores, like cigerettes. Tax the hell out of it. Sell the more powerful strands in specialized dispensories like they're currently doing in many states. Tax the hell out of that, too. Extent health care plans to include marijuana for anyone who ACTUALLY NEEDS IT, which are few and far between, and let them buy from the dispensories for relatively nothing. That way the people who need it medically get it for cheap, while the rest of us can pay an arm and leg.

Why would people buy it from stores? Because people, especially stoners, are lazy. They don't want to have to deal with unreliable, shady drug dealers from the bad part of town. They also don't want to drive 2 hours to pick up from clubs. Growing weed isn't complicated, but keeping a steady supply of it is.
________
Oregon Marijuana Dispensary (http://oregon.dispensaries.org/)

[Schnoogs]

Make it legal...then I can get some easier.

[Wackman3000]

So much stupidity in this thread that I'm not even gonna begin to chime in, I'll just puff puff and pass. ;)

[President Fred]

I used to smoke a lot, but I've pretty much stopped now. I say legalise it. I am not very into the subject but I really cannot see how legalising it would cause more harm than it does now.

[Tel Prydain]

I am so very torn on this issue:

* If booze, cigarettes and cigars are legal, it’s silly that pot isn’t
* The tax would be helpful
* Why pay cops to chase down stoners?
* Isn’t it funny that they are banning a plant?


On the otherhand:
* It would weaken the argument against other illeagal drugs
* I’ve seen intelegent, eloqent people start doing pot a lot and become drooling imbisles.

On the other, other hand:
* If people what to fuck themselves in their head, isn't that their right?

On the other, other, other hand:
* Wouldn’t it hurt our very sociaty if potentual leaders over-used pot and turn brain-fucked?

At the end of the day, I'd love to see it legal for one reason.... Making it legal would see people buying it in shops, rather then forcing them to get to know dodgy people. The same dogey people who might provide ‘P’ – Pure Methamphetamine. And that shit is shocker.
New Zealand is an island, which means it’s easy for us to keep out cocaine and heroin. But as ‘P’ is easy to make, it fills the void. Increased energy, diarrhoea, nausea, insomnia, agitation, irritability, panic attacks. Totally fucks you.

[Inspector Fowler]

I'm big into personal freedom, and that's why I say legalize it. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's harmful to me. There are a lot of legal things you can do that are very deadly.

Like anything, it can be good or bad.

I'm sure that I meet many people who are occasional users who smoke socially to relax or get a little silly. Providing they haven't smoked it recently, I probably don't ever get a clue.

The people who get into the whole stoner "culture", though - as offended as they may be, they're essentially just like alcoholics.

If somebody drank at every social occasion, wore liquour t-shirts, drank no matter what the legal consequences, etc, nobody would have a problem saying they probably drink too much. But do the same thing with pot, and people get offended. Why? There's nothing wrong with saying that too much of anything can be bad.

So legalize it. The people who have chosen for years to use it responsibly can do so without the fear of legal problems. Jobs can still make it prohibited, just as they can require you to come in sober.

The people who choose to overuse it will continue to face a lot of the same problems they do already. It's not like the heavy users are hard to spot - same as with alcohol.

But then again, I feel this way about a lot of things. I am not big into the whole "nanny state" thing where the government tries to regulate things like seatbelts, smoking, etc.

[squirrelTactics]

The people who get into the whole stoner "culture", though - as offended as they may be, they're essentially just like alcoholics.

How are Tie-Dye shirts, being lazy, and pretending to be philosophical comparable to slurred, violent speech and wife-beating?

[jeffbax]

On the otherhand:
* It would weaken the argument against other illeagal drugs
* I’ve seen intelegent, eloqent people start doing pot a lot and become drooling imbisles.

On the other, other hand:
* If people what to fuck themselves in their head, isn't that their right?

On the other, other, other hand:
* Wouldn’t it hurt our very sociaty if potentual leaders over-used pot and turn brain-fucked?

Pot's effect on intelligence is hugely debatable. I'd argue it has no effect at all, and in fact some of the smartest kids that went to school with me were heavy users. Additionally they could all spell intelligent.

Seriously, this is the silliest logic ever. Turned brain-fucked? You really don't know much about it do you...

Abusing a habit into not caring should NOT be confused with actually harming your body like other drugs can do.

I see far stupider things done under the influence of alcohol than pot.


Additionally, to everyone saying "Cancer!" - do some research. Vaporizers are extraordinarily effective and since they are not lighting things on fire - there is no smoking involved and it is apparently quite clean, not to mention doesn't smell nearly at all.

[Savok]

You would be mistaken. Look into how THC works on the brain (by attaching to receptors) as opposed to how alcohol, cocaine, and just about any other drug works. It's completely different.
If you want to ignore the effect things like paranoia can have on a person go right ahead.

Don't go expecting your dream to become reality if you refuse to acknowledge there's a downside to all this though.

[Scaryfaced]

If you want to ignore the effect things like paranoia can have on a person go right ahead.

Don't go expecting your dream to become reality if you refuse to acknowledge there's a downside to all this though.

To be fair, Savok, your paranoid anyway. It doesn't suprise me in the least that you freaked out. I personally havent seen it, but I've felt some pretty intense paranoia myself at times and can only imagine.

I completely agree with you on the fact that weed has negative effects, paranoia being a major one. At first, weed "culture" can be pretty attractive, but it lulls you into this sense that marijuana is completely harmless. It's easy to say alcohol is much worse, which it is, but it's completely ignoring problems associated with chronic smoking(no pun intended). In my opinion, weed's greatest asset and detriment are the same thing. Weed makes you not give a fuck. In the right situation, that can be great. You can go from angry to calm in 1 toke flat. Now, if you smoke alot, you just might find youself not giving a fuck about anything. At that point, weed's no longer harmless.

Just like alcohol, its up to the person to know themselves and control their smoking habits.
________
Pissing videos (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/31/pissing/videos/1)

[Inspector Fowler]

How are Tie-Dye shirts, being lazy, and pretending to be philosophical comparable to slurred, violent speech and wife-beating?

See, this is a perfect example of why weed will never be legal. A reasonable person says, "I believe in personal freedom, so however distasteful I personally find the culture that surrounds an activity, I think it should be legal." Instead of saying, "Thank you for siding with us, reasonable voter", you become upset that I find the stoner culture to be distasteful.

Most alcoholics are not wife beaters. That doesn't mean their problem is any less severe. Most people who use pot too much (is potaholics too silly sounding?) are going to have a lot of the same problems as an alcoholic.

I have never, ever been drunk, although I do drink. I have never, not once tried any kind of illegal drug, or abused any legal drugs, or tried any kind of legal mind-altering substance. Not once. I find having anykind of "altered state" extremely distasteful. I respect people with control, focus, intensity of mind. Anybody who is drunk, stoned, or any variation, loses those things proportionately to their level of intake. I find it boring and irritating to be the sober "babysitter" when people overindulge. And the worst part is that people who do drink/smoke just can't understand why I find it repulsive, and get upset that I won't try it. Well, not so much the smoking pot - I'd get fired in a heartbeat.

My point is this - my stance on pot, is, in reality, extremely far from the choices I make in my own personal life, because I have a strong belief in personal freedom. If I can be "won over" to the "legalize it" crowd, others can be too - but they key is in convincing them that it's a normal activity that many adults responsibly enjoy. The tie dyed shirts and lazy hippy antics just push the average person further from that viewpoint.

[Ondo]

If alcohol is legal, weed should be too. It's 100% a double standard.
I don't think it's a double standard. However, the basis of the standard is not how dangerous the drug is, but rather for how many centuries it's been a commonly accepted part of society.

I don't think we should allow all drugs that are less harmful than alcohol just because banning alcohol is impractical for historical reasons.

[Bone]

If you want to ignore the effect things like paranoia can have on a person go right ahead.

Don't go expecting your dream to become reality if you refuse to acknowledge there's a downside to all this though.
Sure, temporary paranoia from heightened emotions can be a downside. It's just like getting nervous and jittery from coffee. But you claimed it was something more like brain damage, and I've still never seen someone prove long lasting mental effects from pot.

Anyway, it's not my "dream", I just don't find any of the arguments for keeping it illegal to be valid.

[LongStepMantis]

Sure, temporary paranoia from heightened emotions can be a downside. It's just like getting nervous and jittery from coffee. But you claimed it was something more like brain damage, and I've still never seen someone prove long lasting mental effects from pot.

Anyway, it's not my "dream", I just don't find any of the arguments for keeping it illegal to be valid.

Just wanted to throw this in as well.
Everyone thinks of "burnouts" who smoke pot. The kind of guys who would need someone else to tell them their head was on fire.

From my experience, many of those people didn't smoke themselves stupid...they were just like that to begin with. I'm not saying it can never happen, but all the "burnouts" I knew personally had always been like that, it wasn't as if they started smoking pot and got worse...they were just always that stupid. Our class valedictorian was the biggest pothead I knew, true story.

The only person I knew who got noticeably dumber from drug use did so drinking Gypsum tea...and he drank double the safe dosage. That's his own damn fault, that and you shouldn't fuck with that stuff in the first place.

[biosc1]

Here's a question I've been wondering...and I actually mean it as a sincere question. This comes from a conversation I was having last night with a buddy who I used to smoke pot with many moons ago.

Why do people smoke pot? Is it the taste? The smell? Or how it makes them feel?

I drink alcohol, not to get drunk, but because of the flavour. I may have one or two beer while watching a hockey game (heck, I'm even drinking non-alcoholic beer on occasion), or I'll have a glass or two of wine with dinner (again, has to have a nice flavour). I can't recall the last time I got drunk (probably last New Year's) and I certainly don't like the feeling of being drunk.

So, what's the reasoning behind pot? I did it in the past to get high and get that feeling of being high. I also think, like a lot of alcoholic events, it's a social thing. For me, it just ended up being too much of an irritant on my throat...and to be honest, it made me indifferent...to the point where I would rather sit around and smoke pot than play sports or go to the gym.

[crazyD]

Why do people smoke pot? Is it the taste? The smell? Or how it makes them feel?

I would say, for the most part, it is for the feeling of being high. The smell and taste are acquired tastes, personally I enjoy them, but I know many who do not. The big draw is getting high, though. I think this is similar to alcohol.

[Rock Bandit]

In high school when I tried pot all I did was say dude a lot, eat mushrooms dipped in cake frosting, and giggle my balls off. That's pretty much the kind of shit I do sober so I never really saw the appeal of getting high.

I prefer alcohol because you have so many wonderful varieties and flavors and mixtures to work with. It's almost an art.

[crazyD]

I prefer alcohol because you have so many wonderful varieties and flavors and mixtures to work with. It's almost an art.

There are plenty of varieties and flavors of pot.

[Rock Bandit]

There are plenty of varieties and flavors of pot.

But that's all in the way it's grown, right? You can't really take some pot, mix it with Pixie Stix dust and get some new combination. With alcohol you can play mad scientist on the fly and mix it with all sorts of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks.

I'm not hating on weed here, just explaining why alcohol has more appeal to me than weed.

[Generation ABXY]

Why do people smoke pot? Is it the taste? The smell? Or how it makes them feel?

I drink alcohol, not to get drunk, but because of the flavour. I may have one or two beer while watching a hockey game (heck, I'm even drinking non-alcoholic beer on occasion), or I'll have a glass or two of wine with dinner (again, has to have a nice flavour). I can't recall the last time I got drunk (probably last New Year's) and I certainly don't like the feeling of being drunk.

Well, see, now I just don't know. I always assumed people did it for the feeling, just like I assumed with alcohol. I had a sip - a single sip - of beer when I was younger and thought it was perhaps the single most disgusting taste in existence. Now, even though I'm able, I don't drink at all - hell, I didn't even celebrate my 21st with a single bar, let alone the usual binge (or at least how I've heard it). But, to think someone drinks beer for the flavor...well, that totally sends me for a loop.

[crazyD]

Well, see, now I just don't know. I always assumed people did it for the feeling, just like I assumed with alcohol. I had a sip - a single sip - of beer when I was younger and thought it was perhaps the single most disgusting taste in existence. Now, even though I'm able, I don't drink at all - hell, I didn't even celebrate my 21st with a single bar, let alone the usual binge (or at least how I've heard it). But, to think someone drinks beer for the flavor...well, that totally sends me for a loop.

Beer can be a bit of an acquired taste. I didn't like it when I was younger, but now I do. It also depends on the quality of the beer. If you have some local breweries around, you should try out some of their stuff. Just try to keep an open mind about it.

[rinichanraar]

Why do people smoke pot? Is it the taste? The smell? Or how it makes them feel?

I think it's all of the above. Except taste. So I guess that leaves the feeling and the smell. I know some people aren't fans of the smell, but I actually like it (except when people have that weird, skunky shit).

Well, see, now I just don't know. I always assumed people did it for the feeling, just like I assumed with alcohol. I had a sip - a single sip - of beer when I was younger and thought it was perhaps the single most disgusting taste in existence. Now, even though I'm able, I don't drink at all - hell, I didn't even celebrate my 21st with a single bar, let alone the usual binge (or at least how I've heard it). But, to think someone drinks beer for the flavor...well, that totally sends me for a loop.

It's definitely an acquired taste. It took me a long time to enjoy the flavor of beer, but I actually really do like it.

EDIT: Just realized I said pretty much the same thing as D. Oops, I guess I missed that. Well, I guess it's for emphasis then.

[Generation ABXY]

Well, I think I'm actually fortunate not to enjoy it. One more thing I don't have to spend money on, and more time spent doing something constructive. Frankly, and I suppose you and rinichanraar can answer this, I'm not sure why someone would try to acquire it...

[National Kato]

Frankly, and I suppose you and rinichanraar can answer this, I'm not sure why someone would try to acquire it...

Probably the same reason people try to acquire tastes for other drugs like whiskey and coffee: they like the effects.

EDIT: Didn't realize you were referring to beer. Carry on.

[crazyD]

Well, I think I'm actually fortunate not to enjoy it. One more thing I don't have to spend money on, and more time spent doing something constructive. Frankly, and I suppose you and rinichanraar can answer this, I'm not sure why someone would try to acquire it...

Because... drinking is enjoyable? Nothing better then a brew with some friends.

Have you tried other types of alcohol? If you don't care for the taste of beer, there are plenty of other options.

[Generation ABXY]

Because... drinking is enjoyable? Nothing better then a brew with some friends.

Have you tried other types of alcohol? If you don't care for the taste of beer, there are plenty of other options.

Oh, I was just curious why others would (and the answer seems to be social). Trust me, though, I'm not looking to take it up myself - I've got a bad heart, and I like to be completely aware of it whenever possible. :p

[rinichanraar]

Oh, I was just curious why others would (and the answer seems to be social). Trust me, though, I'm not looking to take it up myself - I've got a bad heart, and I like to be completely aware of it whenever possible. :p

I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't care for the taste and do just drink it to get drunk (but if that's the case, then why not just hard alcohol?). Social drinking is another reason. However, the reason I stuck with beer for awhile even though I didn't like it at first is that my boyfriend and various friends just really enjoyed the taste and I wanted to find one that I liked, too. I figured that if so many people liked it, there must have been something I was missing. I still don't like every beer I try, but there are certain beers that I really enjoy.

[Gormanimal]

But that's all in the way it's grown, right? You can't really take some pot, mix it with Pixie Stix dust and get some new combination. With alcohol you can play mad scientist on the fly and mix it with all sorts of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks.

I'm not hating on weed here, just explaining why alcohol has more appeal to me than weed.

Well, no. While how it's grown does influence the high experienced, and the taste, there are means of variation. For one, there are many different varieties, providing different types of highs. The way you intake it: the "j", the bong, the vapourizer, the cookies. That's plenty of variety for me :D

[rifter]

Well, see, now I just don't know. I always assumed people did it for the feeling, just like I assumed with alcohol. I had a sip - a single sip - of beer when I was younger and thought it was perhaps the single most disgusting taste in existence. Now, even though I'm able, I don't drink at all - hell, I didn't even celebrate my 21st with a single bar, let alone the usual binge (or at least how I've heard it). But, to think someone drinks beer for the flavor...well, that totally sends me for a loop.

Honestly, if you thought that was bad... try wine. We are talking, it is 100% WORSE than most beer. Then, you move up to hard liquor... and oh my god... not only does it taste vile... it HURTS, too. I drink some beer... I can actually not gag over very light beers(Coors Light), and it does loosen you up after one or two...

I understand where you are coming from, I never really had much to drink, mroe than a sip here and there, until I was in my early 30s.

[crazyD]

I can actually not gag over very light beers(Coors Light), and it does loosen you up after one or two...

That's a placebo effect. Coors Light is actually just Aquafina in a can.

[neutralism]

.




http://i37.tinypic.com/167wc3m.gif

[SilentScreams]

Ever get the feeling you're in the minority?

[ShivaX]

Oh, I was just curious why others would (and the answer seems to be social). Trust me, though, I'm not looking to take it up myself - I've got a bad heart, and I like to be completely aware of it whenever possible. :p

Well wines can really add a lot to certain meals. Beer too for that matter, though the range of foods that go well with a good beer is quite a bit smaller in my opinion.

Theres the social aspect as well, of course. Depending on what beer you might have tried odds are it was terrible. When it comes to hard liquor theres not much I really enjoy a whole lot that isn't part of a mixed drink, though in my heyday I did drink Southern Comfort like it was water. I even made the hardcore boozers flinch when I just poured myself shots while they drank beers. Nowdays a shot damn near kills me, which is probably for the best since I could easily see myself crawling into a bottle in my situation.

[Mr. Murphy]

http://i37.tinypic.com/167wc3m.gif

:D You don't even know who's serious and who's fucking with you for being a puritanical party-pooper over the internet.

You ought to find a more valid reason to judge somebody if you're going to be so judgemental. Like, based on what consoles they have. :p

[boratika]

I don't think it's a double standard. However, the basis of the standard is not how dangerous the drug is, but rather for how many centuries it's been a commonly accepted part of society.

I don't think we should allow all drugs that are less harmful than alcohol just because banning alcohol is impractical for historical reasons.
You mean 50 centuries isn't long enough for a drug to be established?
Sure, temporary paranoia from heightened emotions can be a downside. It's just like getting nervous and jittery from coffee. But you claimed it was something more like brain damage, and I've still never seen someone prove long lasting mental effects from pot.

Anyway, it's not my "dream", I just don't find any of the arguments for keeping it illegal to be valid.From this (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118739270/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0):
Findings Regression models adjusting for observed and non-observed confounding suggested that daily users of cannabis had rates of psychotic symptoms that were between 1.6 and 1.8 times higher (P < 0.001) than non-users of cannabis. Structural equation modelling suggested that these associations reflected the effects of cannabis use on symptom levels rather than the effects of symptom levels on cannabis use.

Conclusions The results of the present study add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that regular cannabis use may increase risks of psychosis. The present study suggests that: (a) the association between cannabis use and psychotic symptoms is unlikely to be due to confounding factors; and (b) the direction of causality is from cannabis use to psychotic symptoms.There's plenty more out there, just grabbed the first I saw. The direction of causality is of course heavily contested and different studies show it going different ways, it's about 50-50, but it does at least show cause for concern (not to confused with cause for panic.)

Of course, we should compare that with, say, alcohol. What the WHO has to say (http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/alcohol/en/index.html) about alcohol:Alcohol

Although alcohol consumption has occurred for thousands of years, many of the varied health effects have been discovered fairly recently. Alcohol consumption has health and social consequences via intoxication (drunkenness), dependence (habitual, compulsive and long-term drinking), and other biochemical effects. In addition to chronic diseases that may affect drinkers after many years of heavy use, alcohol contributes to traumatic outcomes that kill or disable at a relatively young age, resulting in the loss of many years of life to death or disability. There is increasing evidence that besides volume of alcohol, the pattern of the drinking is relevant for the health outcomes. Overall there is a causal relationship between alcohol consumption and more than 60 types of disease and injury. Alcohol is estimated to cause about 20-30% worldwide of oesophageal cancer, liver cancer, cirrhosis of the liver, homicide, epilepsy, and motor vehicle accidents.

Worldwide alcohol causes 1.8 million deaths (3.2% of total) and 58.3 million (4% of total) of Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). Unintentional injuries alone account for about one third of the 1.8 million deaths, while neuro-psychiatric conditions account for close to 40% of the 58.3 million DALYs. The burden is not equally distributed among the countries, as is shown on the map below.

http://www.who.int/entity/substance_abuse/en/page22new.gif

Globally alcohol consumption has increased in recent decades, with all or most of that increase in developing countries. This increase is often occurring in countries with little tradition of alcohol use on population level and few methods of prevention, control or treatment. The rise in alcohol consumption in developing countries provides ample cause for concern over the possible advent of a matching rise in alcohol-related problems in those regions of the world most at risk.
Can I just say: 4.7-9%?!

And if we're going to ban "gateway drugs" why not ban the real one (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8246462).

Ever get the feeling you're in the minority?Ever feel like he didn't bother reading the thread, since he included those opposed.

[OUX]

As soon as they have an instant test the can indicate whether or not someone is under the influence of pot (something like a breathalyser) I say legalize it.

[boratika]

As soon as they have an instant test the can indicate whether or not someone is under the influence of pot (something like a breathalyser) I say legalize it.

You mean like in oral fluid tests that currently exist. So we'll add you to the pro- group then.

[Cit Phil Cit]

I think an adult can make their own decisions, whether they think taking legal designer drugs from over-the-counter sources or otherwise, is for them. The only issue, in my mind on any mind-altering substance from coffee to cocaine is the issue of impairment - in regards to the safety of others. If you are going to use something mind-altering there should be sever penalties for putting others at risk for your choices (such as existing laws against impaired driving). Other than that, open season!

[Slack3r78]

internet cliché #310631461
If you're going to take a position in the minority, you're going to actually need to substantiate it. Posts completely devoid of content outside of animated GIFs do absolutely nothing to further the conversation.

EDIT:

Another reason why we need a proper P&R topic with strict moderation. That kind of post is fine for a Lounge type environment, but is unacceptable if people are having a serious discussion.

[neutralism]

Ever feel like he didn't bother reading the thread, since he included those opposed.

Every post made was carefully screened and every name included on the list verified for attribution. One can be opposed to legalization for what I subjectively believe to be for the wrong reasons as well.

If you're going to take a position in the minority, you're going to actually need to substantiate it.

I have honestly never heard of this Internet rule. Correct me if I am wrong, but does that mean that if I am in the majority, I can simply post "Legalize it!" (to use the current topic) and not have to substantiate my reason for change? :confused:

What if I had posted Internet meme #310631461 in the second post of this thread? :confused:

Posts completely devoid of content outside of animated GIFs do absolutely nothing to further the conversation.

Really? I could have sworn I saw similar posts in other topics on the Internet with no backlash. I'll assume you mean for this forum exclusively. No matter, my mistake. I can accommodate. :)

I will forward and quote your advice (with proper attribution) if I see it happening in other threads in the future. Hopefully, I won't get flamed for it. :)

Working along these same lines, maybe you can give me some more helpful advice. :)

Is it okay to be called out by name in the first post of a "serious discussion" thread? Furthermore, is okay to preemptively deem someone a "troll" of the topic before that same person has even had a chance to make a response post in the thread? :confused:

You probably may say that these are stupid questions since they obviously both happened in this thread and you would have stepped in if it was a problem, but I'd like to read it straight from someone in the know so that there are no future potential misconceptions on my part. :)

V/R,

keepweedillegal

[Sly Marbo]

Every post made was carefully screened and every name included on the list verified for attribution. One can be opposed to legalization for what I subjectively believe to be for the wrong reasons as well.



I have honestly never heard of this Internet rule. Correct me if I am wrong, but does that mean that if I am in the majority, I can simply post "Legalize it!" (to use the current topic) and not have to substantiate my reason for change? :confused:

What if I had posted Internet meme #310631461 in the second post of this thread? :confused:



Really? I could have sworn I saw similar posts in other topics on the Internet with no backlash. I'll assume you mean for this forum exclusively. No matter, my mistake. I can accommodate. :)

I will forward and quote your advice (with proper attribution) if I see it happening in other threads in the future. Hopefully, I won't get flamed for it. :)

Working along these same lines, maybe you can give me some more helpful advice. :)

Is it okay to be called out by name in the first post of a "serious discussion" thread? Furthermore, is okay to preemptively deem someone a "troll" of the topic before that same person has even had a chance to make a response post in the thread? :confused:

You probably may say that these are stupid questions since they obviously both happened in this thread and you would have stepped in if it was a problem, but I'd like to read it straight from someone in the know so that there are no future potential misconceptions on my part. :)

V/R,

keepweedillegal


Too many smilies.

[Vulture]

seriosly, no. animated gif' responses with NO coherent rebuttal is frowned upon here... generally. especially if its a topic of serious discussion.

backing up one's standpoint is respected. calling out a large list-o-people, and giving them a stupid gif as your response is not.

yea, it happens elsewhere, but generally its considered shitty, or at least i consider it shitty.


today's writing assignment to be completed:
tell us why you think weed should be kept illegal. look for those who's posts address yours and disagree with yours and see where you think they are wrong. respond appropriately. exztra credit for using credible links to back up your argument.

edit: i agree Slack3r78, a P&R forum is pretty much needed. if you are not aware "keepweedillegal," on the other forums with a P&R section, such a thing would be grounds for a warning... further use of such a technique would probably get you banned from that sub-forum....

[quidmonkey]

Too many smilies.

Must be a Johan-alt.

Dammit, been sick all week. A daily intake of THC hasn't been a part of my balanced diet. :(

[Johan]

Must be a Johan-alt.

I have no alt here. It ain't me, babe (song lyrics).

Actually, the guy confuses me. Maybe he's suffering cognitive impairment from overuse of pot for several decades? :confused:

[Rock Bandit]

-snip-

You still haven't said why you don't believe weed should be legal. For a guy who makes it his username both here and on LIVE you must have strong feelings on the subject. Please, we'd love to hear your position.

[boratika]

I figure out his post format:

1) Do not explain your point of view, nor address direct questions

2) Bring up nonsensical red herrings

3) Maybe hint vaguely at something, but don't bother explain what it means. ie "One can be opposed to legalization for what I subjectively believe to be for the wrong reasons as well."

I'm starting to suspect he has some, as Johan put it, cognitive impairment. But not a physical damage, but more like he was raised in an environment where learning to think critically was impossible in his developmental years.

[ShivaX]

I'm starting to suspect he has some, as Johan put it, cognitive impairment. But not a physical damage, but more like he was raised in an environment where learning to think critically was impossible in his developmental years.

He's from Mississippi?

/flees angry Southerners

[Slack3r78]

I have no alt here. It ain't me, babe (song lyrics).

Actually, the guy confuses me. Maybe he's suffering cognitive impairment from overuse of pot for several decades? :confused:
I think they were having a Pavlovian reaction to all the smilies.

smileysmileysmileysmileyJooooohaaaaaaaan. :p

[boratika]

He's from Mississippi?

/flees angry Southerners

While the cultural reference is lost on me, I'll just assume that is hilarious.

[Johan]

I think they were having a Pavlovian reaction to all the smilies.

I thought it was related to the cognitive impairment. I'm trying to be less impaired, with uneven success. :D

Oh, and I'm a Southerner...I'm grabbing the pitchforks and headed your way, ShivaX! ;)

[ShivaX]

While the cultural reference is lost on me, I'll just assume that is hilarious.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_bes_edu_ind-education-best-educated-index

Though looking at it, I suddenly don't want McCain anywhere near our educational system. I'm just going to blame it on illegal immigrants who don't speak the language/have never been to school (which is likely since NM/CA/NV are also down there).

[digitalErich]

Like others have said: weed, tobacco, and alcohol...making any two legal and the third not makes no rational sense.

[LongStepMantis]

http://i37.tinypic.com/167wc3m.gif

Ok...If we're going that route, my rebuttal:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd315/longstepmantis/FaceMelt.gif

[ShivaX]

Like others have said: weed, tobacco, and alcohol...making any two legal and the third not makes no rational sense.

I never get the argument that lumps tobacco in there.

I mean it kills you, sure, but it doesn't impair you in any way, shape or form. Its about as dangerous to smoke and then drive as it is to drink a cup of coffee and then take off. Which is to say it isn't.

Is it the angle of "pot is dangerous to the people that use it?" I guess from that approach it kind of makes sense.

[boratika]

Ok...If we're going that route, my rebuttal:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd315/longstepmantis/FaceMelt.gif

I think the exploding one would have been more appropriate, since that's how I feel every time I see his unique take on logic.

[OUX]

You mean like in oral fluid tests that currently exist. So we'll add you to the pro- group then.

Never heard of it. Any links explaining it?

[Slack3r78]

I never get the argument that lumps tobacco in there.

I mean it kills you, sure, but it doesn't impair you in any way, shape or form. Its about as dangerous to smoke and then drive as it is to drink a cup of coffee and then take off. Which is to say it isn't.

Is it the angle of "pot is dangerous to the people that use it?" I guess from that approach it kind of makes sense.
Smokers think it doesn't impair them and that they only get the boost of the nicotine buzz with no ill effects outside of the health problems. In reality, you get a boost for 10-15 minutes and then it does deaden your cognitive ability a bit until your next hit. It's not as pronounced as pot, sure, but saying that it doesn't impair you isn't really accurate, either.

[digitalErich]

I never get the argument that lumps tobacco in there.

I mean it kills you, sure, but it doesn't impair you in any way, shape or form. Its about as dangerous to smoke and then drive as it is to drink a cup of coffee and then take off. Which is to say it isn't.

Is it the angle of "pot is dangerous to the people that use it?" I guess from that approach it kind of makes sense.
I'm not saying the three are "equal" in their risk factors. The risks of each, whether they be health related or the possibility of impairment on the user, overlap such that singling one out as bad/evil/illegal just doesn't make any sense.

Weed should be illegal because of health risks? Rolled tobacco is legal.
Weed should be illegal because of the effects on the user? Alcohol is legal when used responsibly.

If you are saying that when these effects are combined is when the real problems start, well then check any Midwestern towny bar for people swilling Jack between pulls on their Marlboro Reds.

[LongStepMantis]

I'm not saying the three are "equal" in some way. The risks of each, whether they be health related or the possibility of impairment on the user, overlap such that singling one out as bad/evil/illegal just doesn't make any sense.

I agree. But the main thing about the comparison, is the one that impairs you the most is legal.

Cigarettes and alcohol are also the worst for you out of the 3. Hell, pot could actually reduce lung cancer risk if you smoke cigarettes (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=86066). And I've known, personally, 4 people who have died from alcohol and tobacco. 1 Drunk driver, 2 liver failures, 1 lung cancer. I've never known anyone who died from smoking pot, in any way.

[ShivaX]

I'm not saying the three are "equal" in their risk factors. The risks of each, whether they be health related or the possibility of impairment on the user, overlap such that singling one out as bad/evil/illegal just doesn't make any sense.

Weed should be illegal because of health risks? Rolled tobacco is legal.
Weed should be illegal because of the effects on the user? Alcohol is legal when used responsibly.

If you are saying that when these effects are combined is when the real problems start, well then check any Midwestern towny bar for people swilling Jack between pulls on their Marlboro Reds.

Ok that makes sense to me.

You're just covering both bases, that clears it up.

[Johan]

Weed should be illegal because of health risks? Rolled tobacco is legal.
Weed should be illegal because of the effects on the user? Alcohol is legal when used responsibly.

If you are saying that when these effects are combined is when the real problems start, well then check any Midwestern towny bar for people swilling Jack between pulls on their Marlboro Reds.

This is actually a very concise explanation. Appreciated.

[Slack3r78]

If you are saying that when these effects are combined is when the real problems start, well then check any Midwestern towny bar for people swilling Jack between pulls on their Marlboro Reds.
Midwestern? I call that a Friday night.

[quidmonkey]

Weed should be illegal because of health risks? Rolled tobacco is legal.
Weed should be illegal because of the effects on the user? Alcohol is legal when used responsibly.

More important, weed should be legal because of its psychoactive effects which lead to mind expansion.

Those who think marijuana should be illegal are either ignorant (haven't done their research) or object to it on a religious (irrational) basis. That is the simple, hard truth.

[Magma]

Weed's fun stuff. But then again, I'm in college :D

On the topic of legalizing, the whole "it's no worse than tobacco/booze" argument has always been enough of a reason for it NOT to be illegal, to me. The fact that there's no reason for it to be illegal coupled with the fact that people like it and use it seems enough of a reason to make it legal. Honestly, it'll probably solve more problems than it creates.

That said, it does need tighter regulation than tobacco and alcohol. Plenty of people have a smoke mid-morning at work. Some have a glass of wine at lunch. Smoking a joint would probably dent productivity a bit more than those two.

[LongStepMantis]

More important, weed should be legal because of its psychoactive effects which lead to mind expansion.

Those who think marijuana should be illegal are either ignorant (haven't done their research) or object to it on a religious (irrational) basis. That is the simple, hard truth.

I have to agree. When you strip off the preconceived notions introduced by religion/society and just look at it from a purely scientific standpoint...it really makes no sense at all. Either all three should be legal (pot,cigarettes, alcohol) or none of them should be.

[digitalErich]

More important, weed should be legal because of its psychoactive effects which lead to mind expansion.
While my favorite album of all time was heavily influenced by the artists state of mind, which was heavily altered, arguments like that are a tough sell and only serve to make the pro-legalization sound like a bunch of hippies.

We need science, hard data, and rational arguments. Some would say, probably correctly, that we already have all three.

I don't want to discount you post. I don't even disagree, I just don't think it's a great platform to pitch from :)

[LongStepMantis]

While my favorite album of all time was heavily influenced by the artists state of mind, which was heavily altered, arguments like that are a tough sell and only serve to make the pro-legalization sound like a bunch of hippies.

You are right, people hear the "Music wouldn't be the same without drugs" argument and roll their eyes...but it's mostly true.

I'll let someone cooler than myself punctuate the point:
(NSFW)
jSH6ofHbeUw
J10w3FuCwfQ

[quidmonkey]

While my favorite album of all time was heavily influenced by the artists state of mind, which was heavily altered, arguments like that are a tough sell and only serve to make the pro-legalization sound like a bunch of hippies.

We need science, hard data, and rational arguments. Some would say, probably correctly, that we already have all three.

I don't want to discount you post. I don't even disagree, I just don't think it's a great platform to pitch from :)

Art is just as important as Science is, and the ties between Art and psychoactive drugs are well-documented. One could also point out how weed kills stress and improves mood, or how weed is very much a social drug, promoting community. While we can use science to negate the ill-informed opinions over weeds health effects, it's benefits are not science's alone to claim. There are, of course, all the other hemp-related benefits, including paper production, textiles, plastics, etc. Plus, the obvious, let's free up our jails, tax the hell out of it, research it, etc.

EDIT

And it should also be pointed out the religious component cannibis has served throughout history.

[neutralism]

Too many smilies.

Okay, another rule, check. Thanks!

seriosly, no. animated gif' responses with NO coherent rebuttal is frowned upon here... generally. especially if its a topic of serious discussion.

Yes, Slack3r78 already covered the "no animated gifs without content" rule already. Thanks for the reinforcement, though. (I would have normally put a yellow happy smilie here so as to not have my statement of thanks be mistaken for sarcasm. This is a tough rule, I think...)

Now, while were on this, is it okay to post a YouTube video without coherent rebuttal? Because, I can use those if animated gifs are a no go. I'm assuming yes since there was one of those kinds of posts in this thread with no backlash, but I forgot to ask Slack3r78 about that. Oh! And also posts with off- topic web comics. Let me know.

backing up one's standpoint is respected. calling out a large list-o-people, and giving them a stupid gif as your response is not.

Yep, Slack3r78 covered "substantiation of opinion" earlier as well, but only if you are a minority opinion holder (who determines "minority" I'm not exactly clear on, but that is not important now). Wait for him to get back to me on if majority opinion holders have to substantiate as well and I'll decide where to go from there (Actually, I like your version of the rule better since it makes no distinction between minority and majority, but let's see how this plays out).

Okay, next is the "calling out of large-list-o-people" rule. Check. I still need to know if calling out a single person is okay, though, so standby on that.

today's writing assignment to be completed:
tell us why you think weed should be kept illegal. look for those who's posts address yours and disagree with yours and see where you think they are wrong. respond appropriately. exztra credit for using credible links to back up your argument.

I'll address this when I respond to Rock Bandit below.

Now please don't take this the wrong way, it is not an attack, as I couldn't personally care less about this when reading posts. Let's make sure that there are no rules that you have to use proper grammar, capitalization, spelling, and things of that nature. Nothing is worse than giving your side of an argument and having someone who disagrees with you focus on that stuff instead of the topic at hand. Everyone makes inadvertent typing mistakes.

edit: i agree Slack3r78, a P&R forum is pretty much needed. if you are not aware "keepweedillegal," on the other forums with a P&R section, such a thing would be grounds for a warning... further use of such a technique would probably get you banned from that sub-forum....

Got it. I only hope that if such a forum is created, the people that didn't want one won't think that I was purposely part of a well-planned in-advance conspiracy to get one created here.

You still haven't said why you don't believe weed should be legal. For a guy who makes it his username both here and on LIVE you must have strong feelings on the subject. Please, we'd love to hear your position.

Let me ask you this. Why would the onus be on me to provide "proof" that weed should be kept illegal? This is not like demanding that someone prove the existence of a deity or intelligent alien life where the onus would be on believers to show tangible proof. In the case here, weed being illegal is the real, true, and tangible legal status quo in the US. I am not calling for any kind of change. Technically, I don't have to do anything in this particular argument because what I want is already the reality! Cognitive impairment? I think not.

The burden is on you all (the so-called majority) to prove to me why we should change the status quo and legalize marijuana. I've read the reasons in this thread (from those who bothered to "substantiate"), and each time I did a real life facepalm.

Nevertheless, I am considering publishing my views and responses to the many different legalization arguments brought up in this thread. I am considering trying out the site blog feature for this. The reason for this, to be honest, is my admitted ignorance of proper posting etiquette and seemingly uncanny ability to induce namecalling. (That and Slack3r78 seems to have forgotten my request for additional advice, probably due to short-term memor... well, I'll save that for later).

Probably what you didn't want to read, Rock Bandit, and I apologize, but if you want instant gratification, ask boratika what my exact views are. He seems to be an "expert" on the style, motives, personality, and intelligence of keepweedillegal.

[roboninja]

*passive-aggressive condesending rant*

If you did a real-life facepalm for every reason listed in this thread, you have real cognitive problems. Even the staunchest anti-weed people would have to grudgingly admit there is some validity to a couple of the points mentioned here, even if that would not be enough to sway their decision to keep weed illegal. You seem to have chosen this stance as your cross to bear; your username, gamertag, avatar all reflect that. Yet, you give no reason, other than "why should I give reasons?". I think I can safely ignore you know.

[Rock Bandit]

Let me ask you this. Why would the onus be on me to provide "proof" that weed should be kept illegal?

I never asked for you to prove anything, just curious about your opinion as this seems to be something you have very strong feelings about. I didn't mean to put the onus, or any other word suspicously close to anus, on you.

If I was only interested in hearing from people who agree with me I'd never of logged onto the internet to begin with.

[ShivaX]

If you did a real-life facepalm for every reason listed in this thread, you have real cognitive problems. Even the staunchest anti-weed people would have to grudgingly admit there is some validity to a couple of the points mentioned here, even if that would not be enough to sway their decision to keep weed illegal. You seem to have chosen this stance as your cross to bear; your username, gamertag, avatar all reflect that. Yet, you give no reason, other than "why should I give reasons?". I think I can safely ignore you know.

What he said. I skimmed it all and it was all complaining that we wanted a response to your lack of... well anything. So we got a response to the response, but not the actual response that was requested (I was going to go response crazy in this sentence).

You make a huge deal out of "Weed Should be Illegal" going so far as to make it your damn user name. When the topic comes up, you post a facepalm. Ok, fine that doesn't really add anything. When people ask you to elaborate on this issue, which obviously means a lot to you, since you created an entire internet persona to address it... you cried that people were picking on you for not saying anything. And continued to not say anything.

I'm thinking you picked the name to get attention since the internet is full of "stoners." You don't actually have any reasoning behind your belief (assuming you even believe it), you just want to annoy people.

[Gormanimal]

In the case here, weed being illegal is the real, true, and tangible legal status quo in the US. I am not calling for any kind of change. Technically, I don't have to do anything in this particular argument because what I want is already the reality! Cognitive impairment? I think not.

If you think the internet exclusively exists in the US and thus the laws and opinions applying there apply here you are sorely mistaken. That's why the users of this forum want your opinion, because here, in this thread you are the minority. If you're part of a majority and you state, 'Hell yeah', we know what you're supporting because the opinion of the majority has been established. For the minority, the reasons for your opinion have not been fully established.

[Vulture]

snip.
so, basically you dismiss all arguments for legalizing it out of hand, and refuse to post your reasons why it should be kept legal. got it

that is not only condescending, but purposefully profoundly obtuse. so um, like where does the conversation go from here with your standpoint, if you refuse to substantiate your position and just decide to consider everyone against your position as having no argumentative merit. i guess that means you win in a way... the same way a troll "wins"

you argue that the status quo is good enough reason to not discuss the point..... fine, by that logic NOTHING status quo would ever be discussed here... be it gay marriage, taxes, social reforms, or the wii not sucking....

i am convinced you aint got shit for your argument and your online "persona" is simply made up to incite controversy.... controversy you cannot even support effectively.

i would be interested in reading you blog on the subject, but i am convinced it will be no more enlightening than watching reading rainbow.

[Schnoogs]

Let me ask you this. Why would the onus be on me to provide "proof" that weed should be kept illegal?.

You're joking right?

[rinichanraar]

Wait, I was just curious to see if this was actually someone's alt, so I checked to see if the GamerTag actually exists, and I found this:

http://card.mygamercard.net/keepweedillegal.png (http://profile.mygamercard.net/keepweedillegal)

420? Seriously?

[biosc1]

Wait, I was just curious to see if this was actually someone's alt, so I checked to see if the GamerTag actually exists, and I found this:

http://card.mygamercard.net/keepweedillegal.png (http://profile.mygamercard.net/keepweedillegal)

420? Seriously?

Ha...too perfect. Really makes me question this persons motives...

[rinichanraar]

Ha...too perfect. Really makes me question this persons motives...

Same. I'm actually kind of baffled. This most likely means that "KeepWeedIllegal" is not his primary GamerTag, but rather an extra one he has on the side. But he complained earlier about continually being "team killed" for having that as his GamerTag, which wouldn't really make sense because he could just play on his other Tag if it bothered him so much.

Unless he's a new 360 owner who went out of his way to leave his gamer score at 420 temporarily, I'm sensing shenanigans.

[quidmonkey]

Nevertheless, I am considering publishing my views and responses to the many different legalization arguments brought up in this thread. I am considering trying out the site blog feature for this.

By all means, I'd like a reply to what others and I have raised.

[OUX]

More important, weed should be legal because of its psychoactive effects which lead to mind expansion.

Those who think marijuana should be illegal are either ignorant (haven't done their research) or object to it on a religious (irrational) basis. That is the simple, hard truth.

Uh, not really. Every person I knew that failed out of college smoked themselves out.

[neutralism]

I think I can safely ignore you know.

Ironically, if people would have originally done this and just dismissed me as another gamer with a quirky name, none of this would have been necessary.

I never asked for you to prove anything, just curious about your opinion as this seems to be something you have very strong feelings about.

Here's the thing. I initially didn't have any "very strong feelings" about it. It was projected on me in the very first response to my very first post on this site and it quickly steamrolled from there. Research it if you desire. The key word in that first response is "hate."

You make a huge deal out of "Weed Should be Illegal" going so far as to make it your damn user name.

Completely false accusation. Others here have made a big deal out of my username being what it is, some innocuously, many negatively reactionary. The state of things being the way they are, it now seems to be commonly assumed that I have been hijacking every thread I post in by "demanding" of others that weed be kept illegal. I have done no such thing. Once again, do the research.

When the topic comes up, you post a facepalm. Ok, fine that doesn't really add anything. When people ask you to elaborate on this issue, which obviously means a lot to you, since you created an entire internet persona to address it... you cried that people were picking on you for not saying anything. And continued to not say anything.

I was called out by name in the OP and branded as a "troll" by another poster BEFORE I EVEN RESPONDED IN THIS THREAD. Let me type that again because this is the entire crux of my "non-answering": BEFORE I EVEN RESPONDED IN THIS THREAD.

If this were simply a "Thoughts on Legalization" thread without the call-out and pre-emptive troll-branding, and I posted the same list and facepalm like I did, I would deserve every shred of criticism, name-calling, and ill will without excuse. But that was not the case.

Under these established uneven playing field thread conditions, I felt I had the right to respond in any damn way I saw fit. Due to this poor behavior and since no one at all tried to give me the benefit of the doubt before I could respond, neither you nor anyone else are in a position to make any kind of demands for elaboration or judgments thereof.

I'm thinking you picked the name to get attention since the internet is full of "stoners." You don't actually have any reasoning behind your belief (assuming you even believe it), you just want to annoy people.

Picking an Xbox Live name to get attention. Say it ain't so! If I picked something like "its420sparkitup" or such, would you claim I did it since the Internet is full of "stoners" and I wanted to make them happy? Would you still be angry at my decision?

If I really wanted to "annoy" people, as you claim, I would rail incessantly in every thread about why people here are continuously bragging about performing criminal activities. But I haven't, so spare me your selective outrage.

If you think the internet exclusively exists in the US and thus the laws and opinions applying there apply here you are sorely mistaken. That's why the users of this forum want your opinion, because here, in this thread you are the minority. If you're part of a majority and you state, 'Hell yeah', we know what you're supporting because the opinion of the majority has been established. For the minority, the reasons for your opinion have not been fully established.

As you have seen above, my "opinion" has already been made for me. Anything I say about it now would not be believed. Sorry.

It's a moot point anyway because I never had any intention of changing anyone's stance on legalization. That would be thoroughly counter-productive to the status quo.

i guess that means you win in a way... the same way a troll "wins"

I was never in any "competition" with anyone here. If I posted my opinions and the "majority" determined that they sucked and that I fail and lose, weed would still be illegal. And as a side note, it still will be no matter who becomes the next US President.

you argue that the status quo is good enough reason to not discuss the point..... fine, by that logic NOTHING status quo would ever be discussed here... be it gay marriage, taxes, social reforms, or the wii not sucking....

I was only speaking for myself in regards to the issue at hand. Don't project that into hyperbole about other issues. FFS, it's only a 15 letter Gamertag!

i would be interested in reading you blog on the subject, but i am convinced it will be no more enlightening than watching reading rainbow.

Judged before the blog was even read or even created...

By all means, I'd like a reply to what others and I have raised.

But wait! Maybe there's hope yet...

Wait, I was just curious to see if this was actually someone's alt, so I checked to see if the GamerTag actually exists, and I found this:

http://card.mygamercard.net/keepweedillegal.png (http://profile.mygamercard.net/keepweedillegal)

420? Seriously?

...

I don't know whether to be amused or appalled.

I thought it was a poor photoshop attempt but I actually own those games. However, my Gamertag is all in small-caps so I don't know what is going on with "KeepWeedIllegal" there.

Same. I'm actually kind of baffled. This most likely means that "KeepWeedIllegal" is not his primary GamerTag, but rather an extra one he has on the side.

I only have one Gamertag. Who would need more than one personal Live Gold account?

But he complained earlier about continually being "team killed" for having that as his GamerTag, which wouldn't really make sense because he could just play on his other Tag if it bothered him so much.

See above and it is no longer a complaint since I stated that I have fun griefing my "fans" right back at them nowadays.

Unless he's a new 360 owner who went out of his way to leave his gamer score at 420 temporarily, I'm sensing shenanigans.

Unfortunate and embarrassing coincidence which I will rectify as soon as I get my console back from loaning it out the other day.

But seriously, buying a bunch of games and purposely targeting selective achievements across them all, thereby gimping the full game experience and wasting money, all in order to make a gamerscore of exactly "420" in order to... well, in order to what? Look like a complete fool? That's dangerchan insane.

[Mr. Murphy]

You were labeled a troll before you even said anything because your username is as trollish to some of us as the username 'its420sparkitup' would be to you.

Caring so much about something that does not affect you is the kind of thing rational people desire an explanation for. I can't think of a single other person on CoG who has a username that denounces or supports something as strongly as yours does - so you earned the title of troll.

Personally, I don't care what you think or why you think it, but don't get all indignant like you didn't ask for this thread and these attitudes. You displayed your point of view for all to see, whether they want to see it or not, so you don't get to cry about it when people make assumptions about you. Your username is the only part of you we get to see, if keeping weed illegal is so important to you that you chose this to be your tag, it obviously says something about who you are as a person. But you're right, why should you explain yourself? Just walk away. You've made your stance known with every post you make, whether you want to or not, whether it's a conversation about marijuana or not.

[boratika]

Never heard of it. Any links explaining it?
No particularly good ones, mostly they either want to sell you a kit or sell you a method for falsely passing one. The rest seem to be outdated information or lacking in information. There's a brief description on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Testing#Saliva_drug_screen_.2F_Oral_fluid-based_drug_screen).

The police here use them. Basically you swab some saliva press it against some paper doped with something that changes colour in the presence of offending substance. A bit more clunky than a breathalyser, but still small and swift. I'm not sure if anyone's been formally charged for testing positive for cannabis, but they've nicked a good few for amphetamines.

I don't know whether to be amused or appalled.

I thought it was a poor photoshop attempt but I actually own those games. However, my Gamertag is all in small-caps so I don't know what is going on with "KeepWeedIllegal" there.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f66/boratika/keepweedillegal.png

Feel free to try the URL yourself.

You were labeled a troll before you even said anything because your username is as trollish to some of us as the username 'its420sparkitup' would be to you.

I disagree, he was labelled as a troll first from the 3rd post he made here. Seriously, check it out (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?p=26481#post26481), this his answer to what bittorrent client he uses:"Other(please specify)" is my vote.

For specification, I use Visa's online payment software.

Now, I can only think of two reasons he would post this reply.

Firstly - He doesn't comprehend the difference between a client for downloading/uploading and a payment method. This is akin to saying your email client of choice is cash, or your FTP client of choice is direct debit. Like comparing apples and summer holidays.

Secondly - There is an implied subtext. The only one I can divine from it, is that payment is the alternative to a bittorrent client. That is, using the torrent means you have failed to pay for something you should have. In that case he'd just implied everyone else in the thread was a thief. He was then unwilling/unable to see the benefits to open source projects from users downloading a torrent rather than from a direct download. Others and I couldn't help but feel we'd had that conversation somewhere else before.

Or maybe he really hates Mastercard.

[Vulture]

Ironically, if people would have originally done this and just dismissed me as another gamer with a quirky name, none of this would have been necessary.
except that its not. your screename is controversial, intrinsically.

Here's the thing. I initially didn't have any "very strong feelings" about it. It was projected on me in the very first response to my very first post on this site and it quickly steamrolled from there. Research it if you desire. The key word in that first response is "hate."
so, i guess that means your screename and title and avatar and live id are not apt to you. i simply don't understand why someone would choose this this controversial subject as their representative online personality if they don't feel very strongly about the issue. naturally people would assume that it was.


Completely false accusation. Others here have made a big deal out of my username being what it is, some innocuously, many negatively reactionary. The state of things being the way they are, it now seems to be commonly assumed that I have been hijacking every thread I post in by "demanding" of others that weed be kept illegal. I have done no such thing. Once again, do the research.
perhaps, but surely you can understand people's reactions. if i were to make a whole online persona that was overtly advertising "legalize it," i would assume people would take it the same way.


I was called out by name in the OP and branded as a "troll" by another poster BEFORE I EVEN RESPONDED IN THIS THREAD. Let me type that again because this is the entire crux of my "non-answering": BEFORE I EVEN RESPONDED IN THIS THREAD.
well, the thread was started in response to the subject of YOUR online persona. i suspect the OP did this to keep the conversation popping up in other threads which was inevitable. as for the troll call out, yea that was not called for, but unfortunately your subsequent posts did not prove your point too well that you were not a troll.

If this were simply a "Thoughts on Legalization" thread without the call-out and pre-emptive troll-branding, and I posted the same list and facepalm like I did, I would deserve every shred of criticism, name-calling, and ill will without excuse. But that was not the case.
actually this is the case, exactly as you described. people are called trolls all the time. its ancillary

Under these established uneven playing field thread conditions, I felt I had the right to respond in any damn way I saw fit. Due to this poor behavior and since no one at all tried to give me the benefit of the doubt before I could respond, neither you nor anyone else are in a position to make any kind of demands for elaboration or judgments thereof.
you were given plenty of benefit of the doubt by more than a handful of level headed posters. some however could not see past your controversial online persona you created for yourself. honestly this did not even become an issue until you made the list-o-peeps and facepalm post. people were naturally offended by that especially in the absence of an explanation.


Picking an Xbox Live name to get attention. Say it ain't so! If I picked something like "its420sparkitup" or such, would you claim I did it since the Internet is full of "stoners" and I wanted to make them happy? Would you still be angry at my decision?
this is a bad example. the difference between "its420sparkitup" and "keepweedillegal" is one is expressively against it, the other is just saying smoke weed. if you had "legalizeitalready" i'm sure it would spark controversy, probably not as much, but it would be controversial. people would want to know why you think it should be legalized.

If I really wanted to "annoy" people, as you claim, I would rail incessantly in every thread about why people here are continuously bragging about performing criminal activities. But I haven't, so spare me your selective outrage.
i think how it went was this: people saw your screename and it prompted a discussion about the subject. ONE poster called you a troll. you ended up showing up in the thread and acting like a tard and refusing to substantiate your position. you weren't explicitly being called out by the community until you started to act like a shithead


As you have seen above, my "opinion" has already been made for me. Anything I say about it now would not be believed. Sorry.
your opinion you wear on your sleeve, your highway-cone-orange chip on your shoulder adds to it. perhaps you should actually work at making yourself believed.

I was never in any "competition" with anyone here. If I posted my opinions and the "majority" determined that they sucked and that I fail and lose, weed would still be illegal. And as a side note, it still will be no matter who becomes the next US President.
no, its not a competition, its a conversation. some people here naturally enjoy informed conversations/debates. perhaps you don't belong here if you don't like these things.

I was only speaking for myself in regards to the issue at hand. Don't project that into hyperbole about other issues. FFS, it's only a 15 letter Gamertag!
its controversial. do not act like the hunted deer here. its controversial, you broadcast your message every single time you post a response in a thread.


basically you should change your screename if you don't want to incite this type of controversy. ignoring of such a reaction is either stupid or intentional. it is obvious that you get this elsewhere form your responses. so i guess the whole of the internet is out to get you.. if you do not like this type of reaction then perhaps you should change things on your end. the internet will not change. my thinking is that you like the reaction, and it makes you feel important, or whatever, or makes you think that others are stupid.

[Sly Marbo]

Ironically, if people would have originally done this and just dismissed me as another gamer with a quirky name, none of this would have been necessary.



Here's the thing. I initially didn't have any "very strong feelings" about it. It was projected on me in the very first response to my very first post on this site and it quickly steamrolled from there. Research it if you desire. The key word in that first response is "hate."



Completely false accusation. Others here have made a big deal out of my username being what it is, some innocuously, many negatively reactionary. The state of things being the way they are, it now seems to be commonly assumed that I have been hijacking every thread I post in by "demanding" of others that weed be kept illegal. I have done no such thing. Once again, do the research.



I was called out by name in the OP and branded as a "troll" by another poster BEFORE I EVEN RESPONDED IN THIS THREAD. Let me type that again because this is the entire crux of my "non-answering": BEFORE I EVEN RESPONDED IN THIS THREAD.

If this were simply a "Thoughts on Legalization" thread without the call-out and pre-emptive troll-branding, and I posted the same list and facepalm like I did, I would deserve every shred of criticism, name-calling, and ill will without excuse. But that was not the case.

Under these established uneven playing field thread conditions, I felt I had the right to respond in any damn way I saw fit. Due to this poor behavior and since no one at all tried to give me the benefit of the doubt before I could respond, neither you nor anyone else are in a position to make any kind of demands for elaboration or judgments thereof.



Picking an Xbox Live name to get attention. Say it ain't so! If I picked something like "its420sparkitup" or such, would you claim I did it since the Internet is full of "stoners" and I wanted to make them happy? Would you still be angry at my decision?

If I really wanted to "annoy" people, as you claim, I would rail incessantly in every thread about why people here are continuously bragging about performing criminal activities. But I haven't, so spare me your selective outrage.



As you have seen above, my "opinion" has already been made for me. Anything I say about it now would not be believed. Sorry.

It's a moot point anyway because I never had any intention of changing anyone's stance on legalization. That would be thoroughly counter-productive to the status quo.



I was never in any "competition" with anyone here. If I posted my opinions and the "majority" determined that they sucked and that I fail and lose, weed would still be illegal. And as a side note, it still will be no matter who becomes the next US President.



I was only speaking for myself in regards to the issue at hand. Don't project that into hyperbole about other issues. FFS, it's only a 15 letter Gamertag!



Judged before the blog was even read or even created...



But wait! Maybe there's hope yet...



...

I don't know whether to be amused or appalled.

I thought it was a poor photoshop attempt but I actually own those games. However, my Gamertag is all in small-caps so I don't know what is going on with "KeepWeedIllegal" there.



I only have one Gamertag. Who would need more than one personal Live Gold account?



See above and it is no longer a complaint since I stated that I have fun griefing my "fans" right back at them nowadays.



Unfortunate and embarrassing coincidence which I will rectify as soon as I get my console back from loaning it out the other day.

But seriously, buying a bunch of games and purposely targeting selective achievements across them all, thereby gimping the full game experience and wasting money, all in order to make a gamerscore of exactly "420" in order to... well, in order to what? Look like a complete fool? That's dangerchan insane.

Not enough smilies.

[Slack3r78]

I was called out by name in the OP and branded as a "troll" by another poster BEFORE I EVEN RESPONDED IN THIS THREAD. Let me type that again because this is the entire crux of my "non-answering": BEFORE I EVEN RESPONDED IN THIS THREAD.

If this were simply a "Thoughts on Legalization" thread without the call-out and pre-emptive troll-branding, and I posted the same list and facepalm like I did, I would deserve every shred of criticism, name-calling, and ill will without excuse. But that was not the case.
There's still zero justification for it. You just blindly posted a list of everyone who'd posted in the thread, regardless of whether they'd said a thing about you. Frankly, based on the fact that I've yet to see you contribute anything other than a derailment in this thread and your behavior in other threads, I don't think the label was particularly unfair.

[Johan]

You were labeled a troll before you even said anything because your username is...trollish

I was going to make this very point. Too true. Imagine if I chose the username "GamersAreFuckingPirates" or something like that! ;)

There's still zero justification for it. You just blindly posted a list of everyone who'd posted in the thread, regardless of whether they'd said a thing about you.

I wondered WTF that was all about. All I posted was

I blame cotton growers.

And I made his idiotic list. Damn. I didn't advocate for or against legalization. I just made a statement that I believe is factual; cotton was threatened by hemp, and cotton growers wanted it illegal.

[rinichanraar]

<MyGamerCard.net picture>

Thanks for posting this so I wouldn't have to. I'm on the way out to buy some games, and I didn't really have time to explain to him that it came from a legitimate site. You'd think he'd have heard of it? :confused:

[VerseD]

And I made his idiotic list. Damn. I didn't advocate for or against legalization. I just made a statement that I believe is factual; cotton was threatened by hemp, and cotton growers wanted it illegal.

Paper makers, too. In the 1930's they started a big, racist campaign saying hemp and marijuana were responsible for Mexican sloth and we still haven't gotten over it.

Shows how out of date the banning of cannabis and especially hemp really is.

[ShivaX]

Paper makers, too. In the 1930's they started a big, racist campaign saying hemp and marijuana were responsible for Mexican sloth and we still haven't gotten over it.

Shows how out of date the banning of cannabis and especially hemp really is.

A lot of the ban on pot is based in racism from what I understand. It was a way to go after mexican immigrants.

[quidmonkey]

Uh, not really. Every person I knew that failed out of college smoked themselves out.

Can you provide more than an anecdote? Let me give you mine: I know many stoners. They're smart, good people, who work hard daily and do what they can to make the world a better place. Therefore, since my anecdote is obviously better than yours, we should legalize it.

[Rock Bandit]

Here's the thing. I initially didn't have any "very strong feelings" about it. It was projected on me in the very first response to my very first post on this site and it quickly steamrolled from there. Research it if you desire. The key word in that first response is "hate."


So you're just going to continue to dance around an honest question from a merely curious person without flat out stating how you feel or telling me you don't want to tell me how you feel. Dissapointing you would keep deflecting my query by pointing out things others were saying to you and completely avoiding the dialogue I personally was trying to engage you in.

I see no point in further courting frustration so good day sir.

[OUX]

No particularly good ones, mostly they either want to sell you a kit or sell you a method for falsely passing one. The rest seem to be outdated information or lacking in information. There's a brief description on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Testing#Saliva_drug_screen_.2F_Oral_fluid-based_drug_screen).

The police here use them. Basically you swab some saliva press it against some paper doped with something that changes colour in the presence of offending substance. A bit more clunky than a breathalyser, but still small and swift. I'm not sure if anyone's been formally charged for testing positive for cannabis, but they've nicked a good few for amphetamines.




Well then I would say legalize it. My main concern is that people will be driving or operating machinery under the influence (I don't care if a person thinks they "drive better" high they are full of shit). Regardless of the effectiveness of the measures, aka party plates, I think there needs to be laws in place to prevent that kind of abuse and the only way to do that is a reliable on-the-spot testing method.

[OUX]

Can you provide more than an anecdote? Let me give you mine: I know many stoners. They're smart, good people, who work hard daily and do what they can to make the world a better place. Therefore, since my anecdote is obviously better than yours, we should legalize it.

Not exactly sure where your logic is going, probably nowhere, but there are valid reasons to keep pot illegal that have nothing to do with ignorance or religion while the arguments to legalize it are either "tax the hell out of it," or the more popular "because."

[Mr. Murphy]

Not exactly sure where your logic is going, probably nowhere, but there are valid reasons to keep pot illegal that have nothing to do with ignorance or religion while the arguments to legalize it are either "tax the hell out of it," or the more popular "because."


I'm still waiting to hear these reasons it should be illegal.

Especially if those same reasons somehow don't apply to cigarettes and alcohol.

Edit: In other words, I agree with you. Nobody should be driving high. But that hasn't caused us to outlaw cold medicine or beers yet, so why weed? Legalizing it "because" we want it legal is a good enough reason for me, when the only reason it's illegal is also 'because'.

[Slack3r78]

Edit: In other words, I agree with you. Nobody should be driving high. But that hasn't caused us to outlaw cold medicine or beers yet, so why weed? Legalizing it "because" we want it legal is a good enough reason for me, when the only reason it's illegal is also 'because'.
It's a matter of perspective. I don't think that the validity of any given law should be based upon its current status as law. Instead, laws should generally be examined critically with the emphasis being on discarding a law unless there's very good, articulable reason for having it.

[quidmonkey]

Not exactly sure where your logic is going, probably nowhere, but there are valid reasons to keep pot illegal that have nothing to do with ignorance or religion while the arguments to legalize it are either "tax the hell out of it," or the more popular "because."

It's in response that anecdotes and personal experiences are bad reasons for national policy.

No, the arguments are as follows:

1) It's a taxable commodity
2) It would free up our prisons (save lots of money) and allow our law enforcement to go after more important things
3) The various hemp-related commodities we can produce, which include, but are not limited to: textiles, plastics, paper, etc.
4) Cut out the black market (because now you'll be buying it from pharmacies, etc.) and put to death the popular, but unsupported gateway drug theory (You can't have pushers pushing harder drugs on you, if you're not going to pushers in the first place).
5) Whatever other benefits (potential risks, too) involved in actually being able to research the product
6) Health-related benefits
7) The social-related benefits (weed is a social drug - duh)
8) Mind expansion benefits (this is against claims that drugs somehow lessen or take away cognition i.e. make you stupid)

Response to common critiques:

1) Carcinogenic properties from smoking: If legalized, cannabis would become signifcantly cheaper and quality would rise (higher THC and other cannabinoid %). Thus, you would need to intake less, plus other, non-smokable ways of intaking cannabis would become possible. We're talking foods (brownies, herbs on salads, etc.) and drinks (teas, etc.). In addition, vaporizers would decrease in price (no more $600 volcanoes), as many would now want one. Vaporizers are a healthful way of smoking that doesn't involve combustion of the cannabis; thus, no carcinogenic properties.

2) Health-related problems - Jury's still out, but you can't say either way, because research is minimal due to its illegal status. It's true that some will never be able to smoke, just like some can't drink, or ride roller coasters, or walk, etc.

3) Gateway Drug - See #4 above

4) Weed makes you stupid, lulz - See #8 above. It's no secret the long history between the arts and drugs (religion, too). And yes, there's a time to smoke weed, and a time not to. Just as you can't drink at work, so too, you can't smoke at work.

5) People shouldn't be out in public and smoke - Then create publicly-sanctioned areas where you can, just like with cigarettes and alcohol. In addition, most would advocate a minimum smoking age (just like a drinking age) and a smoking & driving law (just like a drinking & driving law). In addition, see #1, as there are other ways to intake cannabis.

EDIT

And to add to #1 about cannabis being a taxable commodity: One can only imagine the number of jobs, businesses, research oppurtunies, etc. it will create if a market the size of the cannabis black market is legalized.

[neutralism]

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f66/boratika/keepweedillegal.png

Feel free to try the URL yourself.

Ah, boratika... Me old china...

That is a Gamercard. All I've ever mentioned was my Gamertag and all it's letters are most definitely in small-caps. Why that site is capitalizing the "k" "w" and "i" is beyond me. And I stated that I thought it was a photoshop, but realized that it couldn't be because the played games all matched. Not to mention I also stated I would rectify that embarrassing gamerscore number as soon as I could.

So put that in your bong and smoke it.

I disagree, he was labelled as a troll first from the 3rd post he made here. Seriously, check it out (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?p=26481#post26481), this his answer to what bittorrent client he uses:

Now, I can only think of two reasons he would post this reply.

Firstly - He doesn't comprehend the difference between a client for downloading/uploading and a payment method. This is akin to saying your email client of choice is cash, or your FTP client of choice is direct debit. Like comparing apples and summer holidays.

Secondly - There is an implied subtext. The only one I can divine from it, is that payment is the alternative to a bittorrent client. That is, using the torrent means you have failed to pay for something you should have. In that case he'd just implied everyone else in the thread was a thief. He was then unwilling/unable to see the benefits to open source projects from users downloading a torrent rather than from a direct download. Others and I couldn't help but feel we'd had that conversation somewhere else before.

Or maybe he really hates Mastercard.

And, of course, you leave out the part where the OP in that thread stated he didn't want anyone talking about torrenting use, thus implying that people are thieves and will brag about their illegal piracy activities.

Thank you on your instructive example on how to make a yellow journalistic post. You should apply for the Editor-in-Chief job of the San Francisco Chronicle, you're so eminently qualified.

(But, I guess both he and you get free passes since neither of you have usernames that cause people to go into involuntary apoplectic convulsions.)

And I made his idiotic list. Damn. I didn't advocate for or against legalization. I just made a statement that I believe is factual; cotton was threatened by hemp, and cotton growers wanted it illegal.

Your statement was completely factual and therefore worthy of a facepalm because that information threatens the legal status quo. So you indeed made the list with alacrity.

Thanks for posting this so I wouldn't have to. I'm on the way out to buy some games, and I didn't really have time to explain to him that it came from a legitimate site. You'd think he'd have heard of it? :confused:

See my response to boratika above. Not the yellow journalism part, but the Gamercard part. And the bong smoking part as well.

So you're just going to continue to dance around an honest question from a merely curious person without flat out stating how you feel or telling me you don't want to tell me how you feel. Dissapointing you would keep deflecting my query by pointing out things others were saying to you and completely avoiding the dialogue I personally was trying to engage you in.

I see no point in further courting frustration so good day sir.

I mentioned doing a blog to state my positions? Sigh...

I have no control nor any personal responsibility over my own reactions to your username and avatar and therefore you're a troll...

I have no control nor any personal responsibility over my own reactions to your username and avatar and therefore you're a troll...

I have no control nor any personal responsibility over my own reactions to your username and avatar and therefore you're a troll...

You know, I always thought that a real troll would neither "cry" nor get "indignant" at dissension, but instead would be rolling (down the street, smoking endo, sipping on gin and juice...) on the floor, laughing his ass off. I haven't laughed yet.

Anyway,

I just finished reading the "LittleBigPlanet Delay Thread" before making this post and it is like a bizarro version of this very thread. We have:

1. The LBP game itself (legalization)

2. The LBP controversial content (my username)

3. The people offended by the content (the Marijuana Fundies here)

4. Sony (Me)

The bizarro twist is that there are posters there (that also posted here) that are, to use the word of the day, crying at the decision to remove the bits of music because it may offend some people: ("Intimidation!" "Religious zealotry!" "Censorship!") and yet, it is the complete opposite over here in regards to my content: ("Trolling!" "Shithead!" "Change your username!") and etc.

Well, screw the blog, I may as well complete the bizarro circle.

I have 930 MS points sitting in my Live account, which I was saving for Vigilante 8: Arcade, but enough to pay for a Gamertag name change.

I (Sony), will capitulate to the demands of the majority (minority) and eliminate my username (controversial content) in order to appease the Marijuana Fundies (Islamic Extremists). :mad:

As a show of good faith, I will even let you all choose the Gamertag and consequently forward a request to change my username here to match it (Within Live and CoG terms of agreement, naturally, I'm not getting my account banned...)

Hell, throw in the avatar and text beneath the username as well.

I will give you all 4.20 days to come to a majority consensus.

Accept the offer or never bother me again about my username/Gamertag.

- keepweedillegal

[Slack3r78]

Originally Posted by Slack3r78
I have no control nor any personal responsibility over my own reactions to your username and avatar and therefore you're a troll...

Funny, that. I've never made any kind of statement regarding your username or avatar; I've only commented on the substance (or lack thereof) of your posts.

Know why I think you're a troll? Because you throw around strawmen like rice at a wedding.

[Vulture]

- keepweedillegal

wow that it!

actually i don't know what that is....
:(

[Johan]

Your statement was completely factual and therefore worthy of a facepalm because that information threatens the legal status quo.

You don't make a bit of fucking sense. If the facts threaten the legal status quo, then the legal status quo is bullshit, as is your username and your entire attitude. You need a better basis for your position than "it's the legal status quo" and "the facts threaten it." That on its surface is a serious...

http://gamingfanboy.com/images/facepalm.gif

Accept the offer or never bother me again about my username/Gamertag.


How about you just GTFO? You stir up more shit than Montezuma's revenge in my intestines.

[Slack3r78]

You don't make a bit of fucking sense. If the facts threaten the legal status quo, then the legal status quo is bullshit, as is your username and your entire attitude. You need a better basis for your position than "it's the legal status quo" and "the facts threaten it." That on its surface is a serious...

http://gamingfanboy.com/images/facepalm.gif



How about you just GTFO? You stir up more shit than Montezuma's revenge in my intestines.
Heh, Johan is laying the slap down on others for bad behavior.

Next thing I know, TK and dangerchan are going to post photos of themselves sporting goatees in the Colonizers thread.

Also, I'm sober on a Saturday night. Does this mean CoG is bizarro universe?

[Johan]

Heh, Johan is laying the slap down on others for bad behavior.

I'm not above occasional hypocrisy and double-standards. ;) A spade is still a spade, even if another spade says so. :)

[Generation ABXY]

Heh, Johan is laying the slap down on others for bad behavior.

Next thing I know, TK and dangerchan are going to post photos of themselves sporting goatees in the Colonizers thread.

Also, I'm sober on a Saturday night. Does this mean CoG is bizarro universe?

Damn you, LHC!!!

[neutralism]

My deepest apologies to everyone for my recent poor behaviour.

It was completely uncalled for and I am truly sorry.

I have no excuses and I will learn from my mistakes.

No forgiveness necessary, but I promise this Community it won't happen again.

Once again, my apologies. :(

- Paul

(New username is pending approval and I admit up front it was by request from the top to change it immediately, which I realize is only right.)

[Johan]

My deepest apologies to everyone for my recent poor behaviour.

If people can forgive me, they can forgive you. My intestines feel better already. :)

[Vulture]

If people can forgive me, they can forgive you. My intestines feel better already. :)

MSPQm_WFrcI

sorry for crappy video quality, anyone got the same clip...from youtube but better?

[Vulture]

No forgiveness necessary, but I promise this Community it won't happen again.

To err is human; to forgive, divine.i forgive you :)

may i ask, is the subject of why you are of the opinion it should be kept illegal still open for discussion?

[Rock Bandit]

Heh, Johan is laying the slap down on others for bad behavior.

Next thing I know, TK and dangerchan are going to post photos of themselves sporting goatees in the Colonizers thread.

Also, I'm sober on a Saturday night. Does this mean CoG is bizarro universe?

I hate Rock Band! Guitar Hero forever!

[Purple Santa]

I'm still waiting to hear these reasons it should be illegal.

Especially if those same reasons somehow don't apply to cigarettes and alcohol.

Edit: In other words, I agree with you. Nobody should be driving high. But that hasn't caused us to outlaw cold medicine or beers yet, so why weed? Legalizing it "because" we want it legal is a good enough reason for me, when the only reason it's illegal is also 'because'.

That "because" really is due to the origin of drug laws. Not just modern illegal substances...but the original drug laws...history is always helpful when trying to decipher the present. I recently took an Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs class where the history of the laws on illegal drugs was eye opening. I was amazed why we not only have the drug laws we have, but more importantly, why we perceive illegal substances the way the U.S. does.

[boratika]

That "because" really is due to the origin of drug laws. Not just modern illegal substances...but the original drug laws...history is always helpful when trying to decipher the present. I recently took an Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs class where the history of the laws on illegal drugs was eye opening. I was amazed why we not only have the drug laws we have, but more importantly, why we perceive illegal substances the way the U.S. does.
You sound agitated. Let me recomend something to calm your nerves:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Bayer_Heroin_bottle.jpg/180px-Bayer_Heroin_bottle.jpg

[Gormanimal]

That "because" really is due to the origin of drug laws. Not just modern illegal substances...but the original drug laws...history is always helpful when trying to decipher the present. I recently took an Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs class where the history of the laws on illegal drugs was eye opening. I was amazed why we not only have the drug laws we have, but more importantly, why we perceive illegal substances the way the U.S. does.

Wow, that would have been a fascinating class. Was there any particular books you read that you would recommend?

[Gormanimal]

Interesting how far opinions on 'Mary J' propagate: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/daily-brief/2008/10/17/hedge-fund-manager-goodbye-and-f-you

[Schnoogs]

Uh, not really. Every person I knew that failed out of college smoked themselves out.

Every person I know who failed out played way too many video games...maybe they should be illegal too! :p

[Johan]

Was there any particular books you read that you would recommend?

Class texts? Dude...they rolled 'em and smoked 'em after classes (hemp paper!). I doubt he remembers! ;)

[Generation ABXY]

Every person I know who failed out played way too many video games...maybe they should be illegal too! :p

I guarantee all of them - OUX's mentioned friends and yours - failed out because of bad grades; clearly we should outlaw those!

[Inspector Fowler]

I guarantee all of them - OUX's mentioned friends and yours - failed out because of bad grades; clearly we should outlaw those!

Trust me, there are a lot of parents and hippie types who think so. There is a charter school in this city that doesn't give any grades to the kids. Everybody can learn at their own pace and stuff. Sigh. I think it only goes K-6, but I pity the people who really feel that way and teach their kids that trying is all that counts.

[King3567]

I think it should be legal. That way it can be taxed and such and easier to obtain without having a bunch of shady stuff going on. Like others have said, alcohol is much more dangerous beast and if it's legal, then so should pot.

The drug war is a very pointless one. How much money do we spend on this every year? Regardless of the number, its too much. The people who want to smoke, will. Plain and simple.

[Gormanimal]

Class texts? Dude...they rolled 'em and smoked 'em after classes (hemp paper!). I doubt he remembers! ;)

Wow. Good to see someone practising what they preach. :p

[mister slim]

That "because" really is due to the origin of drug laws. Not just modern illegal substances...but the original drug laws...history is always helpful when trying to decipher the present. I recently took an Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs class where the history of the laws on illegal drugs was eye opening. I was amazed why we not only have the drug laws we have, but more importantly, why we perceive illegal substances the way the U.S. does.

Did your class go into the history of coffee at all?

[neutralism]

i forgive you :)

may i ask, is the subject of why you are of the opinion it should be kept illegal still open for discussion?

Thanks, Vulture.

I was particularly vicious to you and many others that I quoted directly. Apologies, once again to you and everyone else. :(

I decided that a blog would be a bad idea since apparently you can be "dugg" on stuff here. I don't think the Founders would appreciate the traffic of a bunch of people registering just so they can call me an asshole and troll (asstroll?) on the comments.

If it's okay with you, I'd rather PM you my opinion if you still want it. I recommend against it though if you suffer from ulcers. If not, at least have a bottle of antacids ready. Let me know what you prefer.

[Vulture]

TI decided that a blog would be a bad idea since apparently you can be "dugg" on stuff here. I don't think the Founders would appreciate the traffic of a bunch of people registering just so they can call me an asshole and troll (asstroll?) on the comments.
naturally, having an opinion about a subject does not make you a troll. its all in how you present your argument. if you go about it by attacking those that oppose your opinion, attacking their character and dismissing their opinions that would be bad.

if you argue your standpoint on your opinions about the subject itself, then that's good. extra good if you can cite studies/polls/laws that back up your argument.


If it's okay with you, I'd rather PM you my opinion if you still want it. I recommend against it though if you suffer from ulcers. If not, at least have a bottle of antacids ready. Let me know what you prefer.
i already know where your opinion stands, so that's not a problem. i was just curious as to why you thought that way. or actually, i was interested in debating back-and-fourth our opinions and learning more about why someone would be against legalization. you seem unwilling to do that at the moment so i will leave it.

[Inspector Fowler]

I was waiting to talk about this until after it happened. Very topically, a student at the university where I work had a protest yesterday for marijuana rights. His goal was to have a smoke in. Despite 180 "attending" responses and around 170 "may be attending" responses on Facebook, no more than 50 people (max) attended the protest. Although our local paper says that a few people did smoke marijuana, it was far, far fewer than we thought it would be. We thought the air would be thick with the scent of weed.

Turns out the protesting spirit of the 60s has just up and died, I guess. This guy seems to have done a decent job of organizing. He even posted a link to a website that had some really good ideas on how to make your protest as irritating as humanly possible, to get maximum exposure. I was ready for a good old fashioned protest. I was ready for dozens of tickets, taking the rowdy ones to jail. I was ready to get insulted and heckled. Instead, he didn't take any of the advice from that page.

At the sight of 7 or 8 cops (the student newspaper said 12...sigh...) the college kids disbanded. We told them they needed a permit to protest on campus - we have a huge "free speech" area where people can say anything they want, as long as they get permission. We allow all kinds of free speech there, from vendors trying to sell sunglasses all the way up to the anti abortion people who have 30 foot tall pictures of mutilated embryos. So some pot smokers are not going to be controversial.

But just giving up when the cops get there? That's not really a protest, guys. If you have a point to get across, you need to stand up for it. What would have happened if Rosa Parks had moved to the back of the bus, or if Martin Luther King had decided it wasn't worth it to get arrested?

The best part - they had all these things up on their Facebook page talking about how they need to bring a bunch of cameras, to record any police harassment. But they were freaked out by the fact that....we brought our own. I guess that thought hadn't occurred to them.

In the end, not a single ticket was handed out, and they all wandered off. :rolleyes:

[Scaryfaced]

Pot smokers who give up easily and are paranoid of law enforcement? I've never heard of such a thing!
________
Marine Insurance Advice (http://www.insurance-forums.org/marine-insurance/)

[Gormanimal]

Pot smokers who give up easily and are paranoid of law enforcement? I've never heard of such a thing!

Haha, exactly what I was thinking!

I was waiting to talk about this until after it happened. Very topically, a student at the university where I work had a protest yesterday for marijuana rights. His goal was to have a smoke in. Despite 180 "attending" responses and around 170 "may be attending" responses on Facebook, no more than 50 people (max) attended the protest. Although our local paper says that a few people did smoke marijuana, it was far, far fewer than we thought it would be. We thought the air would be thick with the scent of weed.

Turns out the protesting spirit of the 60s has just up and died, I guess. This guy seems to have done a decent job of organizing. He even posted a link to a website that had some really good ideas on how to make your protest as irritating as humanly possible, to get maximum exposure. I was ready for a good old fashioned protest. I was ready for dozens of tickets, taking the rowdy ones to jail. I was ready to get insulted and heckled. Instead, he didn't take any of the advice from that page.

At the sight of 7 or 8 cops (the student newspaper said 12...sigh...) the college kids disbanded. We told them they needed a permit to protest on campus - we have a huge "free speech" area where people can say anything they want, as long as they get permission. We allow all kinds of free speech there, from vendors trying to sell sunglasses all the way up to the anti abortion people who have 30 foot tall pictures of mutilated embryos. So some pot smokers are not going to be controversial.

But just giving up when the cops get there? That's not really a protest, guys. If you have a point to get across, you need to stand up for it. What would have happened if Rosa Parks had moved to the back of the bus, or if Martin Luther King had decided it wasn't worth it to get arrested?

The best part - they had all these things up on their Facebook page talking about how they need to bring a bunch of cameras, to record any police harassment. But they were freaked out by the fact that....we brought our own. I guess that thought hadn't occurred to them.

In the end, not a single ticket was handed out, and they all wandered off. :rolleyes:

The outcome doesn't sound that surprising. At least some portion of those saying they would attend just thought it would be cool. Those that did attend were probably hoping to score some weed.

Overall, I'd say it's difficult to try and protest against marijuana laws considering the social stigmas associated with it. I've known people that completely shunned me after finding out I smoked the herb from time to time. In fact, they made a big scene and left a party we were at after someone else asked if anyone had any to smoke because it would be fun and I spoke up - yes, I think I'm still bitter about that. It certainly takes a lot less to be labelled a pot head than a chain smoker or alcoholic. So comparing smoking at a party vs. going to protests, I could easily see how people would be concerned about being labelled and judged unfairly.

[Schnoogs]

As I sit here, high as a kite, I've had a change of heart and think that pot should be kept illegal. :p

[Slack3r78]

We told them they needed a permit to protest on campus - we have a huge "free speech" area where people can say anything they want, as long as they get permission.
No offense to you, Fowler, because I genuinely like you, but I find a hugely amusing internal irony in that statement. :)

[Inspector Fowler]

No offense to you, Fowler, because I genuinely like you, but I find a hugely amusing internal irony in that statement. :)

It sounds kind of silly, I know. But it is a hugely trafficked area on campus. The idea was that in the past, I guess, people were just all over campus, sometimes keeping people from entering or leaving buildings unless they'd paid the speaker enough attention.

So they have this big area, where almost anybody can go to an office in the student center and get permission. It really is very diverse. Sometimes the Marine Recruiters are there. Lately there has been a preacher/pastor guy who has been yelling (literally) about evolution. He gets a LOT of attention, and sometimes he upsets people so much they come close to hitting him. The anti-abortion people came through with their giant, gross billboards. The pro-choice people protested right next to them, and it all went really well, from a "keep the peace" point of view.

I think these students would have a pretty good chance of getting a permit and getting some real attention, compared to a quick video on the college newspaper's web site. Hey, maybe they'll do it again. I hope they get a permit next time, though.

[alienmastermind]

This is an interesting conversation, but I think the better term would be 'decriminalization' versus 'legalization'.

Making ownership or growing pot a misdemeanor, like drunk in public or lewd behavior, something that gets you a fine, and in serious cases (distribution to a minor, etc.) gets you jail time seems fair.

Pot use among teens has skyrocketed over the last few years, if the polling data is correct. The reason is that its cheap to make, easy to transport in a local area, and its forbidden fruit. In places where it's either legal or decriminalized, the problems with drug abuse or dropout behavior is lessened somewhat.

So, I don't know if I'd be for legalization or not.

I do know that when I started drinking, it wasn't at the legal age. And when I didn't die from drinking, and maintained my rules: If I'm drunk, I don't drive or get into the car with drunk drivers...I avoided legal and physical harm.

But the important thing, is that some of the most oppressive parents told my peers that marijuana would kill them, or some such nonsense. When the guys realized they had been lied to, especially after getting high and feeling 'good', they simply ignored any risks involved with constant usage.

I think South Park said it best: 'It won't kill you, and it may be fun occasionally, but getting high all the time takes away your creativity, and makes you a lethargic mess'. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but whatever. :)

[ShivaX]

This is an interesting conversation, but I think the better term would be 'decriminalization' versus 'legalization'.

Decriminalization is the better term for what people want. Hell we almost did it under Carter. The public was pretty well behind it and it seemed like it was going to happen. Then one of his people did something stupid involving other drugs and it got put on the back burner. Then Reagan and Bush came in and declared war on drugs and set everything back to the 50s again.

[Purple Santa]

Wow, that would have been a fascinating class. Was there any particular books you read that you would recommend?
The class was great. Although the focus was on addictions, interventions, and other various "social work" perspective you would expect from the class. Much of the information I got was from the class presentations which in most cases are really boring, this class had top notch. I wish I had all the references they came up with. However, the History Channel had some episodes on this topic. It's at least a start if you are interested in the history...
Did your class go into the history of coffee at all?

Someone actually did a presentation on caffeine, and of course coffee was covered. As of right now, according to the "professionals", since there is no withdrawal involving caffeine, it's not listed as a substance that you can "abuse or misuse". That is as of now. Doesn't mean researchers aren't trying to change that perspective. Many researchers believe this is untrue. I have a mother who swears she gets caffeine withdrawal if she doesn't have coffee in the morning and all day long. But..she's also not all there either :).

And to the person who showed the pic of the old time heroin ad...kudos good sir...someone knows their drug history ;)

[boratika]

For the history of coffee, this documentary (http://blackcoffeemovie.com/home.html) is a good place to start.

And to the person who showed the pic of the old time heroin ad...kudos good sir...someone knows their drug history ;)

Not as well as I know the history of stupid things that people were meant to consume for their supposed therapeutic properties. Sure, opiates are still used medicinally, but over the counter heroin to ease your infant's cough always makes me laugh in a very bitter-sweet way.

But a spoonful of petrol should make me feel better:)

But the important thing, is that some of the most oppressive parents told my peers that marijuana would kill them, or some such nonsense. When the guys realized they had been lied to, especially after getting high and feeling 'good', they simply ignored any risks involved with constant usage.

This is something I always find troubling, since (anecdotally) I always saw it lead to the "what else have you led to me about mother?" mentality. Suddenly things like wearing condoms, drink driving, running with scissors and not planning for the future suddenly don't seem so dangerous to them.

I'm a firm believer in uniformly giving people accurate information, lest they get all cried wolf about it. I know teenagers can't make decisions properly (don't have the frontal and parietal lobes for it) but that seems to even more reason to supply them with more and accurate information to give them a leg up in the decision making process.