I love your logic and experience-based statistics, but they seem to be only true for your certain area. And, smoking 28 ounces is entirely possible. You can smoke while you're high, and a blunt doesn't have to contain one ounce of marijuana. It can contain double that or half. It depends on the user.

Hedgemistress wrote:

As for marijuana being mainstream... sorry, no. It's not exactly radical or rare, but that doesn't make it mainstream. > The number of people who've "tried" marijuana includes everybody who, at a party as teenagers or college students, had a hit off a bong or joint that was being passed around and then never touched it again.

I really think it does. I define mainstream as something that is pretty universally accepted - marijuana definitely is.

Regardless of this, the argument is whether or not marijuana is common enough to have caused a case of lung cancer if it truly was as carcinogenic as some claim - the answer is definitely yes.

We might as well argue that homosexuality is and always has been mainstream because some massive percent of everybody compared their no-no bits with their friends as children.

Well, no, because homosexuality is a life style and marijuana use is a hobby.

They might confiscate it and they might fine you. You won't be arrested over a small amount of pot.

No you are wrong. Cops have bigger problems. Most police won't even bust pot dealers.

No matter what the cops' priorities should be, no matter what bigger problems society actually faces... yes, cops most places do bust pot users as well as pot dealers. If there's any truth to your statements, you live in some place that just happens to be a haven, enforcement-wise.

Pot-related busts account for a significant chunk of prison overcrowding. That's one of the arguments used for decriminalization... relatively ordinary, relatively law-abiding citizens go to prison, get exposed to hardened criminals, get a criminal record that makes it harder for them to get employed, possibly get hooked on harder drugs because there's nothing else to do in there, etc.

Why do cops "bother" with pot? One, it is against the law, and some of them are laboring under the idea that it's their idea to enforce it. Two, a lot of drug related busts are good press for the cops... and for the local politicians, who can apply pressure to the cops. "Tough on drugs", "another victory in the drug war", etc... it's far --easier-- (and less risky) to bust pot dealers than it is to break up a highly sophiticated ring that imports or synthesizes the more expensive, harder drugs. More drug related busts == better image.

You really are completely out of touch with the world.

I'd say you've got this backwards. You're clearly biased by what's happening in your own little corner of the world... even most pro-marijuana sources are aware of the significant risk of being jailed for carrying. Otherwise, why bother trying to decriminalize it?

I really think it does. I define mainstream as something that is pretty universally accepted - marijuana definitely is.

Universally accepted? Look at the number of people arguing with you here. YOU accept it. Pot smokers accept it, obviously. Pot smokers != the universal condition.

Regardless of this, the argument is whether or not marijuana is common enough to have caused a case of lung cancer if it truly was as carcinogenic as some claim - the answer is definitely yes.

The problem is that very few people just smoke marijuana... most pot smokers also smoke cigarettes. And I'm sure, when the diagnosis comes back cancer, most pot smokers... being as blind on the subject as you are... downplay their pot msoking to their doctors compared to their tobacco use.

"There's some significant blackening on your lungs. You a smoker?"

No pothead's going to say "Well, yeah, but I also smoke marijuana. Do you suppose that could be the problem?", because they all KNOW that it's perfectly safe to inhale this smoke (the magical smoke that is magically safe to inhale).

If the patient's not volunteering the information, it's not going to come up.

Well, no, because homosexuality is a life style and marijuana use is a hobby.

There's differences... but both imply something that goes on some kind of continuing basis. Marijuana use is a hobby. "Trying marijuana" does not indicate a hobby. It does not indicate a "marijuana user." It indicates somebody who TRIED it.

Everybody in the country could have -tried- marijuana and it wouldn't be mainstream. What would make it mainsteam would be if a significant percentage continued to use it.

Hedgemistress wrote:

Universally accepted? Look at the number of people arguing with you here. YOU accept it. Pot smokers accept it, obviously. Pot smokers != the universal condition.

I said "pretty" universally accepted, and it is. I would wager that as the majority of Americans have smoked marijuana, most people would not be condemning of users.

The problem is that very few people just smoke marijuana... most pot smokers also smoke cigarettes. And I'm sure, when the diagnosis comes back cancer, most pot smokers... being as blind on the subject as you are... downplay their pot msoking to their doctors compared to their tobacco use.

"There's some significant blackening on your lungs. You a smoker?"

I resent you saying that I'm blind on the subject. I know plenty of marijuana smokers who don't smoke cigarettes, but even if 95% of pot smokers DID smoke cigarettes, if pot was as carcinogenic as some insist, at least some of those who smoke only pot would get lung cancer.

No pothead's going to say "Well, yeah, but I also smoke marijuana. Do you suppose that could be the problem?", because they all KNOW that it's perfectly safe to inhale this smoke (the magical smoke that is magically safe to inhale).

Yeah hurr hurr everyone who smokes marijuana is a moron.

There's differences... but both imply something that goes on some kind of continuing basis. Marijuana use is a hobby. "Trying marijuana" does not indicate a hobby. It does not indicate a "marijuana user." It indicates somebody who TRIED it.

Right. I'd say most people in this country haven't tried a homosexual act.

Everybody in the country could have -tried- marijuana and it wouldn't be mainstream. What would make it mainsteam would be if a significant percentage continued to use it.

The argument has become focused on the word mainstream, and it really shouldn't be. It's about the odds that marijuana could cause cancer.

Let's look at it this way.

Wikipedia tells me that 2/3 of illicit drug users smoke tobacco.

Roughly 16% of young adults are regular marijuana users. This represents roughly 28,000,000 people in this age group.

1/3 of that is around 9.3 million people.

I think it'd be fair to say that out of these 9.3 million people, if marijuana smoked in regular doses was carcinogenic, a good number of people would have contracted lung cancer, and I bet, were that the case, that not all of them would ashamed of their marijuana use.

Hedgemistress wrote:

Considering that there are books and articles on the subject of how to deal with the fact that you yourself have tried marijuana when telling your kids not to do it, I'd say your wager is a little premature.

So. Are you saying that the enforcers of our laws, the police officers and judges, have not broken any laws themselves? Pretty much the same thing.

Vortezz wrote:

Is it so important to win this argument that you're arguing a point that somebody didn't even make?

But of course. On the internet, every argument, no matter how inane, is important.

Internets is serious business!!

Hedgemistress wrote:

Not what I said or implied. :P Feel free to rebutt any and all the points I didn't make, though. It will give you something to do.

No, you really did imply that. Marijuana smokers don't think that smoking is a healthy habit, and you're implying that it is viewed as such by THOSE DAMN STUPID STONERS!

Because it horribly undermines your case.

Let's break this down into very simple terms:

You're saying "Look, this smoke is safe to breathe."

'splain to me how that's possible.

First, it doesn't undermine my case at all - look at the pretty rough estimates I made in a previous post - marijuana is plenty of mainstream enough to have caused a cancer case if it was a carcinogen.

Marijuana smoke is not safe to breathe. Heating up plant matter to the point where it combusts and you inhale the fumes is not good for you. It's pretty much common sense - any smoker of anything call tell you about the chest colds and coughs.

However, everything that's smoked is not carcinogenic. Tobacco has been pretty much proven to be, but marijuana really hasn't - like I said, there hasn't been a single lung cancer case attributed to marijuana use.

I don't think anyone is trying to say smoking marijuana is a healthy habit, but there is no proof that it causes cancer.

Psh, everyone knows that weed is illegal because people can grow it themselves at home in larger quantities and probably even cheaper than the government-supported sellers, meaning they won't make as much money thus they banned it (if we ain't gonna get any mojo, no flojo for you.... why I used mojo/flojo here, I don't know...)

Which is why alcohol (to a certain extent) and cigarettes are legal, because replicating it for a cheaper price is a hard thing to do in most cases so they just go to the store and buy it, generating money for the gov.

It's obvious.

- GhostAnime

YAY ^_^

I hope I don't get shot for this and that post "mysteriously" disappears :P

- GhostAnime