Cannabis being Illegal

[minoru_tanaka]

Originally Posted by Tachycardia!

Find a CEO who is a household name like Steve Jobs, or an actor who is well respected like Jon Hamm, and have them in a very candid campaign admitting they have (or still do) smoked weed and it didn't stop them from being successful. Avoid getting stereotypical figures like Snoop Dogg or Willie Nelson and go for people who society holds in high regard. It'll help bridge the gap for some people

There's this documentary, I think it's called Triumph of the Nerds. It's pretty old but I think I remember The Woz talking about how he and Jobs used to get high all the time. Think he also mentioned a bunch of other computer people from the 70s and 80s like they all used to chill together.

But anyways I think things are fine the way they are if the other choice is the gov't taxing it. Maybe just sales tax like everything else but I'm sure they will rape it like they do with alcohol and tobacco. If you want to get rid of the criminal element the best way is to make it cheaper. Make it not worth their while. But there will always be the States and people will always try to smuggle it across for the huge profits.

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by Sid Vicious

well in general the majority of people who hold legislative power are baby boomers

and anyways i didnt mean you gridlock

Ha...I wasn't sure.

[V4NC1TY]

slim chance that it'll become legal .. i'm guessing farthest they'll go is decriminalizing it

[underscore]

Originally Posted by originalhypa

I didn't fail you because your argument is valid. But what is the difference between someone wearing a "420" shirt, and the guy next to him in a "Budweiser" shirt? Is the guy in the Bud shirt a higher quality individual because his poison is legal?

No, but very few people have "bud4life" as a username, but everywhere you go you see people shoving 420 and the like into usernames and shit every chance they get.

Also, beer shirts come in the box, I don't think any dealers give out a 420 shirt with every baggie (but I could be wrong).

[NJMR]

^^
you gotta take into account that pot is illegal and some people just do that 420 stuff as some kinda protest..

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by ninjamurai

^^
you gotta take into account that pot is illegal and some people just do that 420 stuff as some kinda protest..

Once pot were legalized, quite a bit of the pro-420 culture would (if you'll pardon the pun) vaporize just because there is no longer a "man" to "resist" against.

[Meowjin]

in this thread, people discovering FUCKING THESPIANS BLAZE.

[originalhypa]

Originally Posted by underscore

No, but very few people have "bud4life" as a username, but everywhere you go you see people shoving 420 and the like into usernames and shit every chance they get.

again, it's an "underground" thing. The cool kids smoke pot behind the bleachers, and if your daughter ever brought one home you'd be pissed.

A good analogy is the MMA/TapOut craze. All these kids trying to be a part of something. Back in the mid 90's it was all about snoop, and Dre, and the Chronic. That was us being dumbass kids, as I don't know anyone in their 30's who still caters to the "pot culture". All they want to do is blaze and eat Cheetos while playing Call of Duty.

Also, beer shirts come in the box, I don't think any dealers give out a 420 shirt with every baggie (but I could be wrong).

But you have to make that conscious decision to choose that box. Hell, I have a couple of "Crown Royal" hats at home. I don't wear hats, and I don't really like CR, but shit, it's free gear!

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Once pot were legalized, quite a bit of the pro-420 culture would (if you'll pardon the pun) vaporize just because there is no longer a "man" to "resist" against.

werd.
I wonder if people during the prohibition had "Sleemans" or "Cutty Sark" shirts on?

Originally Posted by MajinHurricane

in this thread, people discovering FUCKING THESPIANS BLAZE.

Is this a babelfish translation?

[unit]

^im also guilty of buying beer just for the glasses. I have more liquor glasses stowed away in my cabinets than i could ever know what to do with.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

Originally Posted by Sid Vicious

most americans and canadians will always oppose legalization simply because they are set in their ways.

exactly, so whatever, times will change, when the majority of people that are young now, come into power later.

things change, when values change. Values change when people die.

[underscore]

One of the huge hurdles has to be a roadside check for impairment level (a la breathalyzers). If any substance impairs your ability to operate a massive piece of metal at speed, then the police need to be able to test for this on the fly. I think supporters of legalization should be trying to get this developed.

And don't just push for legalization, but for safe and controlled legalization in stages.

Originally Posted by ninjamurai

^^
you gotta take into account that pot is illegal and some people just do that 420 stuff as some kinda protest..

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Once pot were legalized, quite a bit of the pro-420 culture would (if you'll pardon the pun) vaporize just because there is no longer a "man" to "resist" against.

Oh I know, but the fact that this is the very common stereotype of a pot smoker, the "burned out stoner/typical moron" is part of what holds this back. If the people that obviously smoke pot weren't 99% retards, then the casual smokers who aren't useless at life would be a little less and everyone else would be less about pot use.

Originally Posted by originalhypa

All they want to do is blaze and eat Cheetos while playing Call of Duty.

That's another part of it. Now I know pot isn't listed as addictive, but I saw many people in highschool (and a few friends that are still like this) that NEED to smoke every single day. 95% of what they think about is smoking pot, and 95% of the time they're high to some degree. If that isn't an addition, I don't know what is.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

pot isnt physically addictive. but it is psychologically.

I know a lot of people that do various drugs, and a lot of them say pot is actually the most addictive drug they use (other than cigarettes).

well and cocaine. lol.

but factoring the cost, and other things such as how often you can do it without getting completely fucked up, how well you operate in your day to day basis while on it, how easy it is to get, and how cheap it is... i'd also say it's quite hard to stop.

you cant exactly go to work and function as a human being high on ecstasy everyday, lsd, ketamine or whatever other drug.

but weed, dude, you never need to come down on weed and you should be able to get by fine in life. sorta. haha.


I think it's pretty safe to say, anything that changes your mood can be addictive. Including music.


addiction is a pretty broad term. I know most of us are addicted to RS. or the internet at least.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma

pot isnt physically addictive. but it is psychologically.

I know a lot of people that do various drugs, and a lot of them say pot is actually the most addictive drug they use (other than cigarettes).

well and cocaine. lol.

but factoring the cost, and other things such as how often you can do it without getting completely fucked up, how well you operate in your day to day basis while on it, how easy it is to get, and how cheap it is... i'd also say it's quite hard to stop.

you cant exactly go to work and function as a human being high on ecstasy everyday, lsd, ketamine or whatever other drug.

but weed, dude, you never need to come down on weed and you should be able to get by fine in life. sorta. haha.


I think it's pretty safe to say, anything that changes your mood can be addictive. Including music.


addiction is a pretty broad term. I know most of us are addicted to RS. or the internet at least.

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by underscore

Unfortunately, this is a very popular attitude, especially with Pot. People feel that "Being high on pot isn't really being intoxicated." A coworker of mine has been warned verbally before having come in high before. I understand wanting to get high and feel good, but you wouldn't show up for work after having a couple beers, would you?

[El Bastardo]

Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma

you cant exactly go to work and function as a human being high on ecstasy everyday, lsd, ketamine or whatever other drug.

Originally Posted by underscore

[originalhypa]

Originally Posted by unit

^im also guilty of buying beer just for the glasses. I have more liquor glasses stowed away in my cabinets than i could ever know what to do with.

I don't drink much anymore, but chances are that there's a good reason for it. Like my kids drinking milk out of "Alberta Permium Rye" highball glasses.


Hey, they were free!

Originally Posted by underscore

One of the huge hurdles has to be a roadside check for impairment level (a la breathalyzers). If any substance impairs your ability to operate a massive piece of metal at speed, then the police need to be able to test for this on the fly. I think supporters of legalization should be trying to get this developed.

What difference is there in driving on pot, or on Percocet?
Or better yet, driving while tired? - Long-weekend crash in B.C. kills 6 from Edmonton - CTV News

The point is that while I agree that there should be some method of testing drivers, a logical person knows that there is a point where legislation begins to cause more harm than good. A prime example of this is "speed limiting bumps" on the roadway. Sure, they slow you down to 20kmh, but they also bock ambulances from saving your ass when you have a heart attack in your home, one of the most common ways of dying.

Ambulance_delays

95% of what they think about is smoking pot, and 95% of the time they're high to some degree. If that isn't an addition, I don't know what is.

Those people would be on ativan, or coke, or booze, or heroin, or peyote. Why? Because an addiction comes from the person, not the drug. That's why people can get hooked on shopping, or cutting themselves, or Revscene.

Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma

I think it's pretty safe to say, anything that changes your mood can be addictive. Including music.

exactly!
I love riding my mtn bike, but if I forget my iPod, my ride lasts half as long. For some reason, without music I can't get into a groove. Oh shit, someone call Dr. Drew!

Originally Posted by Graeme S

I understand wanting to get high and feel good, but you wouldn't show up for work after having a couple beers, would you?

Again, how many people do show up to their respective work drunk? Or on pills? Or on a lack of sleep?

All these things will affect your performance, and someone who will show up high on pot, is just as likely to find another crutch, and use that. Again, it's not pot's fault, but the choices made by the user.

Originally Posted by Tachycardia!

Ozzy Ungghhhghghgg pic

that's just super!

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by originalhypa

Those people would be on ativan, or coke, or booze, or heroin, or peyote. Why? Because an addiction comes from the person, not the drug. That's why people can get hooked on shopping, or cutting themselves, or Revscene.

Um, I get the whole "addiction personality" concept, but your logic here is way flawed.

When a guy gets on Intervention and says "heroine is like tasting the sunshine in your soul " then I think the drug has a little to do with it.

His addictive personality may be the reason he starts, but the drug is what takes over.

The act of shopping for addicts creates a rush. The chemistry of drugs creates that rush. Slight difference.

[originalhypa]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

Um, I get the whole "addiction personality" concept, but your logic here is way flawed.

Totally like, way flawed dude?
This isn't a good start...

When a guy gets on Intervention and says "heroine is like tasting the sunshine in your soul " then I think the drug has a little to do with it.

So you're gathering your info from a tv show?
Have you considered that every addict has his own "poison". That's why someone who is hooked on coke, may never smoke a cigarette. Or someone who is hooked on Vodka, may never taste pot. Look into some of the newer case studies on addiction, and you'll see that science is looking at specific triggers that may open up a person's "addictive" side. Sometimes it's a tragic event, other times it's that the person was introduced to their drug of choice.

Tom Sizemore was talking about this on Stern the other day. He was riding a high, new TV show, big money. Then someone (Heidi Fleiss) introduced him to meth. It was an eye opening interview.

His addictive personality may be the reason he starts, but the drug is what takes over.

Are you sure about that?
Becuase again, case studies are starting to show that it's the other way around. That's not me talking, it's the scientific community.

The act of shopping for addicts creates a rush. The chemistry of drugs creates that rush. Slight difference.

The only difference is the method of finding the rush. The rush is what the addict is looking for. Whether you get it from a needle, or jumping from a plane with a parachute, it's all about the fucking rush.

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by originalhypa

Totally like, way flawed dude?
This isn't a good start...




So you're gathering your info from a tv show?
Have you considered that every addict has his own "poison". That's why someone who is hooked on coke, may never smoke a cigarette. Or someone who is hooked on Vodka, may never taste pot. Look into some of the newer case studies on addiction, and you'll see that science is looking at specific triggers that may open up a person's "addictive" side. Sometimes it's a tragic event, other times it's that the person was introduced to their drug of choice.

Tom Sizemore was talking about this on Stern the other day. He was riding a high, new TV show, big money. Then someone (Heidi Fleiss) introduced him to meth. It was an eye opening interview.




Are you sure about that?
Becuase again, case studies are starting to show that it's the other way around. That's not me talking, it's the scientific community.



The only difference is the method of finding the rush. The rush is what the addict is looking for. Whether you get it from a needle, or jumping from a plane with a parachute, it's all about the fucking rush.

We're talking semantics here, and it seems that you are looking for a bit of a fight here given there is some type of a dig in every post aimed at me.

Yes, people are looking for a rush. All I'm saying is there is a difference at that point, given the rush found may be the same but there is a difference when one person used clothes to find the rush vs a chemical that alters your brain chemistry to find it.

Yes, you can 'quit' shopping, but although you miss the rush, your brain chemistry isn't affected in the same way.

This has nothing to do with cannabis in general, as we're talking about the hardcore drugs.

Think about it. Put a "shoppers anonymous" group up next to a "Narc anon" meeting and picture the results. On one side you have a group of well-dressed broke people and on the other you have truly sad cases that don't function the same as they did before they started.

You can compare the two, yes, but you can't call them equal.

And yeah, I'm getting my information from a tv show, because although I've met a few recovering addicts, and one not so recovering I'm not that involved, I don't care that much and I don't research it.

Feel free to come up with whatever scientific studies you want to educate me on the matter, but don't try to do so when you start your post "oh yeah, this will be a good start" because I said way flawed, instead of flawed.

That just comes across as offensive.

[$_$]

.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by originalhypa

What difference is there in driving on pot, or on Percocet?
Or better yet, driving while tired? - Long-weekend crash in B.C. kills 6 from Edmonton - CTV News

The point is that while I agree that there should be some method of testing drivers, a logical person knows that there is a point where legislation begins to cause more harm than good. A prime example of this is "speed limiting bumps" on the roadway. Sure, they slow you down to 20kmh, but they also bock ambulances from saving your ass when you have a heart attack in your home, one of the most common ways of dying.

Ambulance_delays

I fail to see where the ability to test drivers for what is likely the second most common substance-based impairment on the roads is a bad thing?

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Unfortunately, this is a very popular attitude, especially with Pot. People feel that "Being high on pot isn't really being intoxicated." A coworker of mine has been warned verbally before having come in high before. I understand wanting to get high and feel good, but you wouldn't show up for work after having a couple beers, would you?

Exactly, if they do legalize it then the police and media will have to be just as informative about the dangers of doing things high as they currently are about doing things drunk. Pot takes longer to wear off than alcohol as well, if I'm not mistaken. (for the record, I've never used marijuana or any other drugs, hell I don't even take painkillers)

[Nightwalker]

.

[originalhypa]

Originally Posted by underscore

I fail to see where the ability to test drivers for what is likely the second most common substance-based impairment on the roads is a bad thing?

Me too.
That's why I wrote this.

The point is that while I agree that there should be some method of testing drivers

Originally Posted by Gridlock

WThis has nothing to do with cannabis in general, as we're talking about the hardcore drugs.

Then why the hell did you bring it up in a Cannabis thread?

[Phozy]

"The War on Drugs" explained by Graham Hancock - YouTube

!

Comment that stood out ;

Bottom Line: FACT is tobacco and alcohol(drunk driving deaths and injuries included) together are responsible for a significantly GREATER amount of sickness, injury and death than ALL illegal drugs combined. Numbers don't lie, look it up. Yet not only are they Legal, they are Socially Accepted, Endorsed and Advertised(mainly just alcohol, although tobacco was heavily endorsed in the past, even by doctors). With that being said, there is NO Logical, Rational, Valid reason for drugs being illegal.

[goo3]

i had to do a paper on weed before lol. There's actually a lot of research on it. I believe the tar in ur lungs is most unhealthy part, but on the whole it's not really that bad and comparable to the legal stuff.

dug this up..

Studies of the impact of chronic, heavy use of marijuana are fraught with numerous confounds. Despite the many limitations of the different studies, a few conclusions appear tenable. Long-term exposure to cannabis probably does not affect gross intellectual functioning. Nevertheless, the ability to perform quickly on elaborate tasks likely decreases with chronic use. Studies of event-related potentials reveal that the processing of information differs after years of regular cannabis consumption. These results suggest that chronic users may not provide the best performance on complicated tasks that require speedy responses. These deficits imply some alteration in brain function that accompanies chronic exposure to marijuana. The implications for these effects on the brain and nervous system appear in chapter 7.

Earleywine, Mitchell. Understanding Marijuana : A New Look at the Scientific Evidence.
Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, 2002. p 95.
Copyright © 2002. Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.