Medicinal Marijuna

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Dec 2 2004, 11:59 am
In response to Xooxer
I'm against smoking bans in public places, especially bars and resturants. There is no evidence secondhand smoke causes cancer, and if you don't like it, don't go to the places where people smoke.

I guess I should just skip class since there tend to be a crowd of people outside the entrance to Digipen smoking. Unfortunantly in Washignton they're allowed to. One of the nice things in Califonira is that people have to be a minimum distance from any school building if they want to smoke. I don't care if they haven't linked smoking to cancer as I'm sure having foreign substances like that in my lungs isn't doing any good and it's largely uncomfortable.

And if they ever did legalize recreational use of marijuana, it'd most likely be restricted to select places, like Amsterdam restricts smoking only to designated bars.

If it's anything like ciggerette smoke it travels. Any place that allows smoking reeks of it regardless of where you sit. It might not be as bad in non smoking regions but its still largely obnoxious.
Dec 2 2004, 12:11 pm
In response to Theodis
Theodis wrote:
Funny that most the people I have run into that use the stuff are jerks, theives, or irresponsible. May not be the drug that causes it but I have still yet to run into any decent people that use it.

Then it must also be funny that the ratio of whites to blacks changes as you go northward. Being white must force people to move up north, as it can't be that they were already there. Yes, the statistics show that my family moved back up north because they are white.

Just like your second sentence, I have still yet to run into a dark-skinned person in my current hometown or the one I lived in before this.
Dec 2 2004, 1:53 pm
In response to Shades
Morphine is way worse than pot, in any way you can measure it. It is more addictive, more debilitating, etc. Heroin was actually invented because morphine is so bad... yes, heroin, probably the worst drug on the streets, is a better version of morphine!

I'm not saying you have to support recreational drugs, but if you've got no problem with morphine being used as medicine, it's very hypocritical to condemn marijuana as medicine.

Furthermore, you're once again using the "My life is this way so it must be like this for everybody" style of argument, also known as "anecdotal evidence." Life isn't like that. You're you, I'm me, and everybody else is everybody else. Your stepdad's cancer isn't anybody else's cancer. Your experience isn't anybody else's experience.

If you have zero respect for anybody who's even experimented, you're saying yuo don't respect people who make up their own mind.
Dec 2 2004, 2:07 pm
In response to Xooxer
You know, as obviously wildly hypocritical as it is for somebody to say something like they respect their stepdad for taking morphine over marijuana... I find your attitude (which is representative of most marijuana boosters) to be equally blinded.

I mean, take a step back and look at your reaction to whoever it was that said a guy high on pot caused a fatal car accident. "What were the circumstances?", you asked. Well, that's actually a pretty neutral response compared to many I've seen in similar circumstances, with the pro-pot crowd angrily denouncing it and even going so far as to say that marijuana has never caused a car accident.

Is it really so hard to believe that a drug which reportedly makes you "mellow" and "giggly" could cause car accidents? I'm not a driver, but are "mellow" and "giggly" honestly great qualities to have in a driver? And doesn't being stoned do something alter the responsiveness of your pupils? How safe is it to drive at night if your pupils won't dilate properly?

And look at this example of reasoning.

"Pot makes everybody mellow. Nobody ever gets angry on pot. If you know potheads, you would know this is true."

"I know a pothead who got angry on pot."

"Oh, well he was already angry. Something else caused it."

"How do you know?"

"Because nobody ever gets angry on pot. If you knew potheads, you would know this is true."

Isn't that awfully circular? The fact that anger and pot coincide within a person, or stealing and pot, etc., doesn't prove it's a causal relationship... but it doesn't prove it's a casual one, either. :P
Dec 2 2004, 2:46 pm
In response to Hedgemistress
Gah, People who steal money are messed up. Me and some friends had it for like a whole week non stop all most and were all fine. Ive never stolen money or sold things for drugs.

Everyone who Ive smoked with do it all the time and we can all go without weed for ages. What I find addicting to weed is using a bong, they look so freiken cool when the smoke comes out of the stem.


But from all the experiances I and people I know have had, weed does nothing bad to you.
Dec 2 2004, 3:26 pm
In response to Smoko
But from all the experiances I and people I know have had, weed does nothing bad to you.

I've never got hit crossing the street, and I walk everywhere. I walk 6 to 10 miles in a day quite often, so I cross a lot of streets. Neither I nor anyone I know has ever got hit by a car crossing the street. So does this mean nobody gets hit by cars?
Dec 2 2004, 3:38 pm
In response to Jmurph
Using cars in comparison with illegal drugs is a widely alarming and crappy comparison. Cars do useful things, drugs do not. Cars are basically a requirement in the modern world to get people and or things from point A to point B in a quick amount of time. Usually this involves a buisness so that people make money and can use it to buy food and other necessities to survive. Drugs however are used to help people get an effective high, and are usually very counter productive. Comparing cars to drugs is simply a huge mistake since they are much different. While we have become reliant on automobiles to survive as a society, we have not become reliant on drugs to be productive.(Well most of society hasn't at least.)
Dec 2 2004, 3:41 pm
In response to Smoko
Smoko wrote:
I think its legal in Canberra (The capital of Aust)

Nope, that's a common myth. It's decriminalised here, but it's still illegal. All "decriminalised" means is that it won't go on your criminal record if you're caught smoking marijuana. You'll still get reprimanded and have it confiscated, and possibly get fined if it's a repeat offence (I'm not sure what the exact penalties are).
Dec 2 2004, 3:52 pm
In response to Shades
Shades wrote:
The thing that irks me the most is people using excuses like cancer and stuff for the use of Pot. And thats all it is for me, is an excuse. I hated my step dad, he was a physaclly and mentally abusive, retired drill sargent, but he eventally caught cancer when he went to Panama to build a school house. Apperetnly he got spores in his lungs, and his smoking triggered some sort of effect...

I don't quite understand how your step dad got cancer from spores and smoke combining, since cancer is a cellular defect in which a cell wont cease to stop multiplying. It is believed to be caused genetically, but things like radiation usually help generate the defect. Cigarettes contain radiation and that could of caused it, I'm not sure about the radioactivity within marijuana though. Plus I doubt marijuana caused him to be abusive, it was probably the fact that he was a drill sargent and was trained to be that way. I also may be reading this wrong from how you tried to get it across, since as I read forward he refused medical marijuana.

Anyways, the cancer spread, it spread alot, in his brain, in his lungs, all over the place. And the first thing the damn doctors at our local Hospital did was offer him Med. Marijuna. And the one thing I can say I respected him for was that he refused it, he actully refused it a number of times. Instead he a 3 a day morph. pill and a small side mophine IV bag he kept on his waist.

I'm surprised they actually gave him morphine since usually now it is a last choice thing, considering it is a very dangerous drug.

He lived fine up to his last days when he finally had to bring him to the hospital.

I know, I understand some others views, Morphine, other medicial drugs, well, they are STILL drugs. But to me, they are not nearly in the same sense as Pot or Coke, or anything else might be.

Marijuana and cocaine are different than the big M. Marijuana is a depressant that uses a chemical called THC to create a relaxed mood within the user, and it has been proven to help lessen the pressure on the eyes of glaucoma sufferers. Cocaine is a stimulant that works much like any type of amphetamine except for usually a shorter amount of time and with much more powerful yet damaging effects. Cocaine is something that has no real medical uses, but marijuana actually has a few uses and is not nearly as harmful as most other drugs. Morphine on the other hand doesn't do anything good for your health, all it does is it stops you from feeling pain and slows your heart rate. So by comparing and contrasting, marijuana is a much safer substance to use for medical purpouses.


I do not agree with drugs in any sense, and I have 0 respect for people who have even experminted, because they have never given me ONE good reason why they even tried them. Thats like asking the guy who found out licking frogs would give you a buzz why he licked frogs in the first place to begin with. I bet you he wont have a good answer.

I don't see how you have no respect for people who have ever tried a drug. I bet most of your family has taken a sip of beer or liquor, even you perhaps, and just because alcohol is legal doesn't mean it is not a drug. It in itself is a depressant which can be slightly healthy to use in small amounts, but overdoing it will cause problems, just like most other illegal drugs. Plus, if it is ok to do something as long as you have a good reason then I guess robbing a bank is ok as long as it is because you needed the money. Oh wait, it isn't!
Dec 2 2004, 3:54 pm
All I have to say is cigarattes are 20x worse than marijuna and cigarattes are not illegal. Marijuna gets you high, so what? It kills brain cells, so what? Cigarattes kill people. That is what the government is not realizing and it is pissing me off beyond belief. Do they think banning smoking in public places will stop secondhand smoking? Hell no. There are tons of immature parents out there who smoke infront of their two month old child. People smoke outside of public places and when you leave, a wad of smoke comes flying into your nostrils and into your cells. Secondhand smoking right there, there ya' go. Marijuna should not be illegal.
Dec 2 2004, 4:00 pm
In response to GokuDBZ3128
They would legalize it faster than any stoner could count to 13 if they could find a quick and easy way of getting big tax dollars from it.
Dec 2 2004, 4:03 pm
In response to Hedgemistress
Well if they made a pill that would be a painkiller but doesn't get you high, half of the applicants to buy medicinal marijuana would drop out of the program.
Dec 2 2004, 4:03 pm
In response to JordanUl
JordanUi wrote:
They would legalize it faster than any stoner could count to 13.

Lol.

Knowing the government, they would probably hire drug dealers and get 75% of the profit...sneaky bastards....
Dec 2 2004, 4:06 pm
In response to GokuDBZ3128
Marijuana should be illegal, so should cigarettes.
Dec 2 2004, 4:16 pm
In response to Kusanagi
It is believed to be caused genetically, but things like radiation usually help generate the defect. Cigarettes contain radiation and that could of caused it, I'm not sure about the radioactivity within marijuana though.

Um, no. Tobacco is not "radioactive." Tobacco contains carcinogens. Carcinogens are things which "generate carcinoma", or at least, encourage their formations. Radiation is itself carcinogenous, but it's not the only source of cancer.

Bananas are radioactive. They are not carcinogenic. Asbestos is not radioactive. It is carcinogenic.
Dec 2 2004, 5:10 pm
In response to JordanUl
See, the stupid thing with that is, the fact that you're getting high is what is making your body believe you are fine. If it didn't get you high, it would be like military sugar pills! :P
Dec 2 2004, 5:13 pm
In response to GokuDBZ3128
They don't need to higher the drug dealers...they grow it themselves! I posted this a few posts down.
Dec 2 2004, 5:14 pm
In response to Xooxer
Xooxer wrote:
I'm against smoking bans in public places, especially bars and resturants. There is no evidence secondhand smoke causes cancer, and if you don't like it, don't go to the places where people smoke.

Bullcrap. Have you even seen the examples of waitresses who got throat cancer and lung cancer -- who've never smoked a day in their lives -- from working in restaurants which allow smoking? Second-hand smoke is definitely carcinogenic, all the same as asbestos fibres are carcinogenic; you don't have to inhale at the source to get the particles from it, because the particles are airborne.

Not carcinogenic, my ass, man. If you're inhaling it yourself, how the hell would the same stuff you're inhaling (vapour and smoke) not have the exact same effects on other people? =P


Dictating that resturant owners and bars not allow smokers is just stupid. It's their estabilshment, and if they want to allow smoking, they should be able to.

The problem is that it makes other people at risk; smokers are a minority group (here in B.C., it's only 17%). Why should other people have to give up on going to certain places because they're the majority group? Shouldn't the people who choose to be in the minority have to go to their own places? More importantly, why should non-smokers have to be put at risk anywhere they go?

The reasoning behind this is that if a restaurant is allowed to let smokers in, then they will do so. That's 17% of the entire population that you can have now. That's a lot of business; a restaurant owner would have to be a fool to ignore the potential money involved from allowing a smoker in if it wasn't illegal. But that 17% puts the remaining 83% at risk.


Frankly, I think they should just move straight to a prohibition by setting a three-year deadline or some such, and offer any smokers free treatment in order to help them quit. Unfortunately, so doing would bankrupt the government, since they get so much money from tobacco companies. And this is the primary reason why the world economy sucks... it's partially based on killing people.
Dec 2 2004, 6:44 pm
In response to Crispy
Crispy wrote:
Smoko wrote:
I think its legal in Canberra (The capital of Aust)

Nope, that's a common myth. It's decriminalised here, but it's still illegal. All "decriminalised" means is that it won't go on your criminal record if you're caught smoking marijuana. You'll still get reprimanded and have it confiscated, and possibly get fined if it's a repeat offence (I'm not sure what the exact penalties are).

Ahh, so thats what it means.

Thanks for clearing that.
Dec 2 2004, 6:44 pm
In response to Spuzzum
The reasoning behind this is that if a restaurant is allowed to let smokers in, then they will do so. That's 17% of the entire population that you can have now. That's a lot of business; a restaurant owner would have to be a fool to ignore the potential money involved from allowing a smoker in if it wasn't illegal. But that 17% puts the remaining 83% at risk.

I call shenanigans on this reasoning! If "a restaurant owner would have to be a fool to ignore the potential money involved from allowing a smoker in if it wasn't illegal", then a restaurant owner would have to be at least equally as much a fool to ignore the potential money involved from operating an establishment that caters to the preferences of 83% of the population.

In other words, say you have a population of 100 people, 17 of which are smokers. Out of the remaining 83, are there at least 17 people who would consistently choose an exclusively non-smoking facility over one that offers both smoking and non-smoking sections? Of course there are, especially if the restaurant gives out little buttons that say "I only patronize non-smoking restaurants" so the customers can feel extra-superior.

There is definitely a business case to be made for voluntarily operating a non-smoking business -- which is why you can actually find such businesses with very little effort, even in places where it isn't mandatory. This is a perfect example of a situation where a "free market" offers the optimum solution over time. In fact, most of the things that are considered "red state/blue state" issues in America would be pretty much irrelevant if government didn't get its dirty mitts involved in the first place. But that's a rant for another time.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6