Ok, well, I meant it to a more specific point, Chemical liquids, such as toilet cleaners, and household liquids, are used in the creation of Cocaine, and Meth. Not pot, so either way, your points are completely oblivious to this post, seeing as how they're from someone that misinterpreted what I had meant. :P
| |
I would like to make another point, in a general sense, it isn't safe at all to drive impaired by anything, and i am not saying that it is fine to do so.
If you drive impaired at all you need to be sure you know what you're doing, and have someone that is sober in the second seat over. Being safe while driving may sound stupid when you're sober, but it should always be done when impaired. Be safe, saves lives, no mess. | |
Um, not quite. Um, yes quite. Does marijuana stop being a natural herbalicious leaf after it's plucked, dried, rolled, and lit? What about hash/resin? Is that no longer natural? Is there some magical line that has to be crossed before it goes from herb to drug? Where is it? In it's natural form, the leaf, cocain is harmless. It's only after man concetrates the substance does it become a drug. BZZZZZ, wrong. Incans chewed it for centuries... just for the hell of it? You think the potato was the whole basis of their economy? Coca factored widely into their medicinal and religious practices. It was used to numb injuries, soothe infants, revitalizer, decongestant, etc... in other words, they used it for the same things the concentrated form was used for in our patent medicines before it became a recreational drug. Concentrating it makes it more concentrated. It doesn't magically turn it from a benign herb into a powerful evil stimulant. And if the argument is that "natural is good," then concentrated cocaine should be concentrated goodness, right? Marijuana is a drug in it's natural leaf form. That's what he means. ...and the same is true of cocaine. And anybody who thinks that the pot you smoke is more "natural"... you're kidding yourself. Can you name different strains of pot? Do you know why they exist? Because people bred them to ARTIFICIALLY INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THC and other desirable qualities. You know, that crap potheads always rail about the tobacco industry doing when they're talking about how much healthier their burning carcinogenic weed is than the tobacco companies' burning carcinogenic weed? And they're still doing it. In a hundred years, marijuana will be what tobacco is now. Who knows, it had been smoked widely for centuries before tobacco was introduced to most of the world, so it might already be even "worse" in terms of being a natural product vs. being an artificial one. | |
Ok, well, I meant it to a more specific point, Chemical liquids, such as toilet cleaners, and household liquids, are used in the creation of Cocaine, and Meth. Not pot, so either way, your points are completely oblivious to this post, seeing as how they're from someone that misinterpreted what I had meant. I'm sorry, I responded to what you said. I'll put my telepathic goggles on next time. Your point is still way off the mark. Do you know how many harsh chemicals go into making and bleaching the paper you use to roll your joints? You light it with a sulphur match or a gas lighter... eeew, toxic chemicals. So how is marijuana better, then? Unless you're finding a leaf growing in an untainted forest, picking it, and EATING it unprocessed... it's no more natural than any other drug out there. Of course, this has no bearing on whether it's good or safe or whatever. The chemicals used to make it simply don't matter. The end result does. If marijuana is good, it's got nothing to do with what chemicals go into it. Table salt is sodium (burns when exposed to moisture so very dangerous to get on your skin) and chlorine (which is toxic to life). Does this mean we shouldn't use salt? If manure byproducts is used to fertilize a field, does that make the food that comes out of it "manure food." Take a look at the disgusting processes that go into making some of your favorite foods sometime. | |
Hedgemistress wrote:
I'm sorry, I responded to what you said. I'll put my telepathic goggles on next time. I know, I should have stated what I meant more clearly. Your point is still way off the mark. Do you know how many harsh chemicals go into making and bleaching the paper you use to roll your joints? You light it with a sulphur match or a gas lighter... eeew, toxic chemicals. So how is marijuana better, then? Unless you're finding a leaf growing in an untainted forest, picking it, and EATING it unprocessed... it's no more natural than any other drug out there. Yes, of course if you choose the unhealthiest way to smoke you will recieve those toxins and poisons. But thats where choice comes in. Most of the time i choose to smoke out of my bubbler or a pipe, and even then there are some proven dangers to using these two methods. Of course, this has no bearing on whether it's good or safe or whatever. The chemicals used to make it simply don't matter. The end result does. If marijuana is good, it's got nothing to do with what chemicals go into it. Table salt is sodium (burns when exposed to moisture so very dangerous to get on your skin) and chlorine (which is toxic to life). Does this mean we shouldn't use salt? If manure byproducts is used to fertilize a field, does that make the food that comes out of it "manure food." Take a look at the disgusting processes that go into making some of your favorite foods sometime. I think anyone that smokes it should know and understand what it is, what they're smoking, and how it works. I study whatever "drug" i'm about to get involved in, marijuana is the only one I have decided to do, seeing as how it's not as harmful as most other drugs. Even then I won't smoke for the rest of my life, I won't even be smoking next year. As long as someone is knowledgable and can control how they use it, they should be able to smoke it. I'm sure the government can find an easy way to form a compromise, and still make money, and arrests when someone gets out of hand. HM, if you're intrested in reading an article based on the health effects and dangers of different smoking devices, read this. http://www.marijuana.com/pipestudy.php3 | |
It's not as if you're entirely correct either HM.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Cocaine General Chemical formula C17H21NO4 Molecular weight 303.35 amu CAS number 50-36-2 Other names methyl ester benzoylmethylecgonine Cocaine is a crystalline alkaloid that is obtained from the leaves of the coca plant. It is a stimulant of the central nervous system and an appetite suppressant, creating a euphoric sense of happiness and hyperthermia. Though most often used recreationally for this effect, cocaine is also a topical anesthetic that is used in eye and nasal surgery. Cocaine was a popular recreational drug of the 1960s and 1970s, which experienced a peak of use in the 1980s due to the introduction of "crack" cocaine. Use of the powder form has stayed relatively constant, experiencing a new height of use during the late 1990s and early 2000s. The stereotypical powder cocaine user is a frequenter of bars and clubs in his or her 20s or 30s, often employed in an office or professional environment. Average users of "crack" cocaine are 30 years or older inner-city residents of a lower income bracket. Exceptions to both rules exist in large numbers due to the immense popularity of the drug. Cocaine in its various forms comes in second only to cannabis as the most popular illegal recreational drug in the United States. The estimated U.S. cocaine market exceeded $35 billion in street value for the year 2003, exceeding revenues by corporate giants such as Microsoft and General Motors. There is a tremendous demand for cocaine in the U.S. market, particularly among those who are making incomes affording luxury spending, such as single adults and various professionals. Cocaine's status as a club drug shows its immense popularity among the "party crowd." Cocaine may bring higher annual revenues than cannabis because the user must spend $20 or more each time he or she uses. | |
Well, you are right there. "Cocaine" is the derivative of the coca plant, not the coca plant itself. :P But by the same token, "pot" isn't what grows on the ground... you're not grazing off a living plant. I guess I should say, cocaine comes from an herb... and if the whole point is that herbs are "good" and drugs are "bad" (and I get that this isn't what you're saying, but you know that potheads say it a lot in defense of pot), then how can something that comes from an herb be bad?
| |
Actually, I'm going to still go with my point being more valid. Drugs wouldn't even be so widespread if it were not for vehicles, how do you think people smuggle drugs back and forth between countries? Prescription trucks are delivered in delivery trucks, and so without vehicles you wouldn't even have drugs that you consider are more of our society than vehicles. Vehicles touch almost every part of society, drugs only scratch the private and or social occupation of society.
| |
Hedgemistress wrote:
Well, you are right there. "Cocaine" is the derivative of the coca plant, not the coca plant itself. :P But by the same token, "pot" isn't what grows on the ground... you're not grazing off a living plant. I guess I should say, cocaine comes from an herb... and if the whole point is that herbs are "good" and drugs are "bad" (and I get that this isn't what you're saying, but you know that potheads say it a lot in defense of pot), then how can something that comes from an herb be bad? Well, i guess if you wanted to be general about it (Which you always are. :D) then everything can be bad for you, if used incorrectly. And that would lead into the topic of foolproof, which nothing is. Give a knife to the wrong person and someone get's stabbed, basically. Drugs can easily be abused, and can be used for good, too. Just because something is "Natural" should never give assurance that it's safe, that's why humans have ackowledgment, judgment, and all those other useful skills to determine whether you're dying by eating that mushroom, or living. Whoever said "natural" things are always good was completely misunderstood, or just moronic. :D Here is the wikipedia link for that cocaine information too, i was reading it, and it has quiet a large ammount of useful knowledge. Take a look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine | |
Oh, hah, now that I have read what xooxer said before your post, I realized that I completely misinterpreted the subject! :P
| |
That was my basic point, but I guess I could see reason with you pointing out more stuff since someone could interpret it as misinformation since I made it seem like only one thing caused cancer in cigarettes. I do ponder though, what is so different with the fertilizer in cigarettes carrying radiation from plants that are grown with fertilizers like how tobacco is? Is it just the types of fertilizers used, since most tobacco is grown from phosphate fertilizers, while fruits and vegetables may be grown with a much different kind? Gardening and chemistry are not my strong points.
| |
I don't quite understand your post nor its relevance to what Xooxer and I were discussing. Could you please point out the message a bit clearer, since I really can't understand the point you were trying to get across with it. Perhaps if you helped fill in some information that should of gone in between some of the sentences I could understand. I'll make a guess but I'm thinking you are trying to back up Xooxer in saying that drugs and vehicles are close enough in comparison to be related. Just because vehicles can be used to smuggle drugs doesn't mean they are similar, they both perform entirely different acts in society. One messes with the body while one transports objects. They are not close enough to be used in comparison and I can't understand why they would be used in comparison.
| |
I don't know, but it might have something to do with different standards. Tobacco's not technically grown "for consumption" (eating), so there might be laxer standards and less scrutiny on how it can be fertilized. That's something that's always struck me as odd... alcoholic beverages (at least here in the states) don't have to list their ingredients the way soft drinks do. :P "Premium malt beverage with natural and artificial flavors" is all they need to put. I'm sure they don't need to add as many preservatives and things as soft drinks do (since, for instance, this bottle of Jack Daniels Black Jack Cola in my hand is already 5% preservative by volume), but still, "premium malt beverage with natural and artificial flavors" is pretty vague. :P
| |
It's all about dosage. If someone was to extract pure THC and concentrate it into a form that's easily consumable, the way cocain is, it'd probably cause heart failure in the user. If you were to extract the pure caffine from the coffee bean and concentrate it enough, it would kill you too. Anything can be dangerous in extreme doses. Just because the base product is considered good doesn't mean a concentrated form of it is that much more good. Everything in moderation.
~X | |
Well, would we even have vehicles if it weren't for drugs? Without vaccinations against smallpox, maleria, and the like, most people wouldn't have lived to learn to talk. Who's to say the movers and shakers of the industrial revolution wouldn't have died in their cribs if it weren't for drugs? Or their parents, or their parents parents? Drugs have been around so much longer than automobiles. I'd be surprised if they didn't play a vital role in their creation.
~X | |
Hedgemistress wrote:
So are you going to admit the pro-pot movement is as grossly biased as the anti-pot movement? Since when did I become the voice of potheads everywhere? Sure, they're both biased. So what? They have conflicting issues they've vested time and energy in, why shouldn't they be biased? It's not like we're voting for these people. Heck, we don't even expect our polititians to unbiased, even though they say they are. Who wants an unbiased advocate? If someone says they're on my side, I don't want them riding the fence. I want them hitting hard, playing dirty, sticking to their guns and taking advantage of the other's weak points. And if you're not saying people should (or should be allowed to) smoke and drive... then what's the point of this whole exercise? What is the point of all these websites harping on this "research"? Do you think these non-addicts who can't seem to put down the pipe while they're driving even when it's illegal would do so after it was legalized? ... It's like banging my head against a Mac truck here. I do not advocate driving while impaired. I do not advocate driving while impaired. I do not advocate driving while impaired! Sheesh. I'm not defending people who do. I'm not telling people to get all chink-eyed and hop behind the wheel. I'm not cramming spliffs into people's mouths and handing them the keys. I'm just trying to point out that marijuana is not a mjor factor in automobile accidents, and dispelling this uneducated belief that every smoker is a maniac behind the wheel. Clearly, the authors of the pro-pot articles that are loosely inspired by this research don't see anything wrong with smoking and driving. Maybe they don't. Maybe they do. I don't rightly care. I'm more concerend with the guy driving down the road with an open fifth of Jack and a six pack of Milwaulkee's Beast. I know when I see a pot user driving, I won't be concerned for my safety. I can't say the same thing about a person with a can of Blue Ribbon to their lips. It's just one more frontier. They get it legalized, they're still going to be harping on laws that prevent them from smoking and driving because "everybody who's actually done pot knows that you can totally drive while stoned." You can. It's not safe, but you can. You can also drive drunk, but that's not safe either. On the other hand, if it is made legal in public, I'm sure there will be laws against lighting up on the road. Alchohol is legal, but we have open container laws for reasons. No one's pushing for those to be removed, are they? Do you have any evidence to suggest that marijuana is addictive? So, the answer is no. I thought you had something against anectodal evidence? Not to give you an ace, but that last article did claim as much. I still don't see it as addiction, though. No more than an addiction to chocolate. I've stated numerous times that "I need chocolate!" I function better after eating chocolate. Guess this means I'm a chocoholic who's deniying his chocolate addiction. There's no comparison to the cravings a crack addict has and the craving a pothead has. A weak person will give in to chocolate even though they have a toothache. A pothead will refuse a joint because they're too high. I've seen it many many times. I've never known a crackhead to refuse a hit of rock, even though they just consumed the equivelent of 3 eightballs, they'll still rob you for more. If we want to define an irrational and overwhelming desire for marijuana to be "not an addiction," then no, it's not an addiction, but that's pointlessly arbitrary. Have you experienced this "overwhelming desire"? Can you truely quantify something you've never experienced? I'm not trying to call you out, you don't have to answer this. I find it funny, though, how people assume to know what it's like without ever having tried it. It's nothing like you describe. It's a drug. People who abuse it end up craving it. Tell me they don't! Argue with that! But don't just repeat your stupid party line. Stop and take an objective look at all the potheads you have known. So, they crave it? I crave a bloody hamburger with swiss and a side of steak fries. It's not addiction, though. I can take an objective look. Leme see, nope, nope, nope, nope, defiently nope. No, they're just needy bastards who should get a job and stop mooching off of people. Quite a few were scum, but that doesn't mean they were addicts. When you get right down to it, people choose to keep using heroin. Some people some places beat it on sheer willpower and determination. Yeah, and some die trying. Unlike the craving for a bowl, heroin withdrawl is like the superflu with massive amounts of agonizing pain. That's addiction. And the addiction never goes away. Heroin addicts can never have opium derivitives again, or they'll trigger the sickness and have to detox all over. It's a physical addiction, and a serious one. Does that mean it's not an addiction? No. Yes, yes it does. I'm addicted to caffeine but I could choose to stop drinking it. Does that mean it's not an addiction? No. If you can stop, then you're not addicted. Unlike heroin, which permanently alters your body chemistry, a cup of coffee isn't something you need. Some studies suggest that caffeine addiction is stronger than nicotine addiction but is cheaper to feed and less dangerous at a casual level so it more often goes unnoticed. But I could still stop. But it's still an addiction. It's not, though. You're not hooked on it. You can go hours and days without it or any effects from not having it. There's no appreciable withdrawl, and it won't kill you to never have another cafe latte again. If you think you're addicted to it, it's all in your head. Nobody launches a crusde about their right to light weeds on fire and stuff them in their mouth just because they think they should be allowed to. They enjoy it. That's the simple fact. It's a pleasant experience. People like being high because it feels good. It does not feel bad not be high, which would indicate addiction. Just because I want to feel good does not mean I'm an addict. If that were the case, we're all addicts and there's no cure, so why not get high? ~X | |
Well, here's my own take on the effects of marijuana, for whatever it's worth.
1) In general, driving under the influence of marijuana is probably more dangerous than driving under the influence of nothing, and driving under the influence of a LOT of marijuana is definitely more dangerous. On the other hand, if I had to choose between the two highly unlikely hypothetical situations of a highway full of drunks and a highway full of potheads, I'd take the pothead highway, hands down. (Again: for whatever that's worth.) 2) The "amotivational syndrome" described in connection with marijuana is a real phenomenon. It varies from person to person, and with the type and quantity of marijuana used, but it isn't just a mythical bugaboo created by the DARE folks (however many other bugaboos they may create out of whole cloth). 3) "Marijuana makes you stupid" is true in one sense and false in another. It seems to increase the ease with which a person can make connections between seemingly unrelated things, and it also seems to increase the ability to focus in on one specific aspect of a situation. This may be a benefit in an isolated, peaceful setting where a person is seeking new levels of interpretation for Simpsons jokes or passages from Nietzsche, but it's a definite drawback in social situations, particularly social situations where you're not supposed to act "spaced out". Despite the potential drawbacks, though (and ignoring the potential benefits, which I admit can be significant), I believe that public policy regarding marijuana in the U.S. is horribly flawed. If it were treated as the kind of crime that a person could, say, get a $25 fine for, that would be one thing; but in America today, the "War on Drugs" is a ruthless and often shamelessly unconstitutional monstrosity. EDIT: 4) Marijuana can be psychologically addictive, and clearly it is for many people, but it is not invariably so. I remember a friend in college who read an article stating that casual pot users could get by with a quarter-ounce a year, and his comment was, "That's pretty ****in' casual." But the article was actually right. | |
Well I was under the idea that we were talking about currently black listed drugs, not general wellfare drugs, because that changes the point of this entire thread. Sure most health-in-interest medication is used to serve like vehicles are used to serve us, just in differen't ways, but drugs like cocaine, meth, and the such are not. The last time I checked those were the drugs we were talking about.
| |
"found that marijuana increased alcohol-related impairments in a synergistic manner." (notable only in that it 1) confirms one of those popular "myths" that potheads are trying to dispell and 2) contradicts the claim that marijuna high had an "antagonistic" effect on the alcohol-related impairments)
"marijuana impaired peripheral detection of lights under both the focused and divided attention conditions, while alcohol did not"
"Perceptual impairments were also manifested in an increase in reaction time to a subsidiary task, increase in missed turnoffs, and increase in crashes into obstacles on the road"
The key paragraph in the summary is this:
"Experimental research on the effects of cannabis have produced mixed results, indicating that any effects (slightly over half of the experiments we examined showed impairment) dissipate quickly after one hour, so that a day after ingestion they are no longer significant. Furthermore, while drivers feel high, they actually tend to compensate for their feelings. Of the behavioral measures studied, marijuana seems to effect the encoding of information and its short-term storage. It has been found that marijuana impairs digit span (forward and backward) and time estimation. While alcohol causes an underestimate of time, marijuana causes an overestimate of time, and consequently an under-production in time-production tasks. Impairments in tracking and reaction time have also been noted, but in a much less consistent manner than with alcohol impairment. Experiments in actual driving tasks indicated impairment in a range of such tasks, including maintaining lateral position, headway, and speed: negotiating turn-offs; avoiding crashes; and performing secondary tasks. [Ward and Dye (1999) present an excellent summary of the effects of cannabis on various aspects of driving and driving-related performance.]"
All the websites summing up this research harped on the part I have italicized but glossed over the part that is bolded, resulting in an extremely lopsided and in fact openly dishonest portrayal of this study's conclusion. So are you going to admit the pro-pot movement is as grossly biased as the anti-pot movement?
And if you're not saying people should (or should be allowed to) smoke and drive... then what's the point of this whole exercise? What is the point of all these websites harping on this "research"? Do you think these non-addicts who can't seem to put down the pipe while they're driving even when it's illegal would do so after it was legalized?
Clearly, the authors of the pro-pot articles that are loosely inspired by this research don't see anything wrong with smoking and driving. It's just one more frontier. They get it legalized, they're still going to be harping on laws that prevent them from smoking and driving because "everybody who's actually done pot knows that you can totally drive while stoned."
Every pothead who has ever said they need a joint (in other words, every pothead.) Everybody who thinks they function better... or even can't function... without marijuana. I grew up in a small town with a relatively small drug pipeline. I know what happened when the connection dried up for a week. No, it's not the same as needing a hit of heroin, and needing a hit of heroin isn't the same s needing a jolt of caffeine.
If we want to define an irrational and overwhelming desire for marijuana to be "not an addiction," then no, it's not an addiction, but that's pointlessly arbitrary. It's a drug. People who abuse it end up craving it. Tell me they don't! Argue with that! But don't just repeat your stupid party line. Stop and take an objective look at all the potheads you have known.
When you get right down to it, people choose to keep using heroin. Some people some places beat it on sheer willpower and determination. Does that mean it's not an addiction? No. I'm addicted to caffeine but I could choose to stop drinking it. Does that mean it's not an addiction? No. Some studies suggest that caffeine addiction is stronger than nicotine addiction but is cheaper to feed and less dangerous at a casual level so it more often goes unnoticed. But I could still stop. But it's still an addiction.
Nobody launches a crusde about their right to light weeds on fire and stuff them in their mouth just because they think they should be allowed to.