I'm not your secretary, kid. You want an answer? You look it up. _________________ "Sex, streams, friends accessing private members... Either I am just discovering unintentional innuendo or Stroustrup is a pervert."
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 Age: 23 Posts: 1350 Location: My own version of reality
Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 12:48 am Post subject:
Then why are you the one making the claim that there are long term side effects if you cannot come up with any?
(abacacus did say the obvious one I forgot of smoke inhalation)
I like how you changed I am not your damn secretary to I am not your secretary, kid. So now you are saying because I am younger than you I don't know what I am talking about, sounds familier _________________ Trolls exist! They steal your socks, but only the left ones. I wonder what is up with that?
Then why are you the one making the claim that there are long term side effects if you cannot come up with any?
(abacacus did say the obvious one I forgot of smoke inhalation)
I like how you changed I am not your damn secretary to I am not your secretary, kid. So now you are saying because I am younger than you I don't know what I am talking about, sounds familier
It does not take much thought to deduce that risks come with ingesting smoke as opposed to not ingesting smoke. I do not owe you a citation every time I say something.
Please look the info you want to see so badly up yourself. _________________ "Sex, streams, friends accessing private members... Either I am just discovering unintentional innuendo or Stroustrup is a pervert."
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 Age: 23 Posts: 1350 Location: My own version of reality
Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:08 am Post subject:
sage_gerard wrote:
Delphiki wrote:
Then why are you the one making the claim that there are long term side effects if you cannot come up with any?
(abacacus did say the obvious one I forgot of smoke inhalation)
I like how you changed I am not your damn secretary to I am not your secretary, kid. So now you are saying because I am younger than you I don't know what I am talking about, sounds familier
It does not take much thought to deduce that risks come with ingesting smoke as opposed to not ingesting smoke. I do not owe you a citation every time I say something.
Please look the info you want to see so badly up yourself.
you act like I haven't. _________________ Trolls exist! They steal your socks, but only the left ones. I wonder what is up with that?
Joined: Jan 07, 2011 Age: 23 Posts: 14794 Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:08 am Post subject:
Now I am curious about what these terrible long term effects of cannabis are....I mean i know some risks associated with smoking cannabis but that's the smoking doing the harm not the cannabis. Other then that they have not found it damages the brain or body. _________________ It's like alice in wonderland except, my names not alice and this is the real world not a dream.
in terms of long term effects... there is a link with an earlier onset of schizophrenia and marijuana, but i think they haven't established cause/effect vs. correlation.
lung cancer is moot because marijuana can be ingested in many ways, not just smoking.
EDIT: the comment at top is not directed at the people who are respectfully debating. _________________ on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5043493.html#5043493
Last edited by hyperlexian on Fri May 04, 2012 1:27 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Jun 20, 2008 Age: 24 Posts: 12091 Location: La belle province
Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 2:47 am Post subject:
Delphiki wrote:
sage_gerard wrote:
Delphiki wrote:
Then why are you the one making the claim that there are long term side effects if you cannot come up with any?
(abacacus did say the obvious one I forgot of smoke inhalation)
I like how you changed I am not your damn secretary to I am not your secretary, kid. So now you are saying because I am younger than you I don't know what I am talking about, sounds familier
It does not take much thought to deduce that risks come with ingesting smoke as opposed to not ingesting smoke. I do not owe you a citation every time I say something.
Please look the info you want to see so badly up yourself.
you act like I haven't.
I despise when people make the argument "It is bad, it has long term effects, it is the bane of society, etc", then refuse to back it up instead asking others to do the research. But the people against prohibition that argue from an intellectual standpoint have done their homework... Furthermore I would say it is intellectual laziness, I suspect caused by an opinion arrived at before actual knowledge, without the expectation of being called on it. I see it in almost every thread like this. Why even bother contributing to any discussion in PPR if one does not intend to source their material or at least provide an explanation on how this reasoning was arrived at _________________ Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
Are you arguing that we should outlaw everything that is considered harmful?
For the third time, I am not invested in forcing people to do anything.
My point is "just because you can doesn't mean you should". I would advise people not to practice unhealthy habits when they value health. I make that point strongly because I feel that people often times think they are unconditionally entitled to doing something they like. I came into this thread guns blazing because I have a stigma against drunks, smokers, stoners or even glue-sniffers. It is not that I mind their actions; I just don't identify with the motivations behind their habits. They don't even have to be addicted... It's just that mindset of being willing to take unnecessary, easily avoidable risks in the name of hedonism.
I value health, so I avoid fast food, drugs and the like. Anything that could be considered "unhealthy" for a person is something I tend to exercise caution around.
Now, I prodded your last post because it sounded like you were trying to say that liberty means having the right to harm yourself in some way because other people do it in other ways. I now know that is not your position now that you said the below:
Quote:
We should instead focus on social policies and create an environment where people have less reason to seek artificial, drug-induced happiness.
Ok, now we're on the same page. How would you propose this environment be created?
Like I said in my previous post, I believe that we need to solve problems like poverty, social inequality, lack of education, ghettoization, detrimental home environments, unemployment, and all other social deficits that rob people of a future perspective and result in increased risk-taking behavior such as excessive drug use or crime. If one's life sucks and there appears to be no reasonably easy way to improve it, there is no reason to try and prolong it with a safe and healthy lifestyle.
But even if we address these problems, there will still be people who use low-risk drugs like marijuana in their personal pursuit of happiness, for reasons that I think are good and valid. People like the Nobel Prize laureates Richard Feynman, Francis Crick and Kary Mullis. Scientists like Stephen J. Gould, Carl Sagan and Andrew Weil. Artists like Dali, Warhol and Pollock. Writers like Baudelaire, Hemmingway, Philip K. Dick and Douglas Adams. Actors like Jane Fonda, Jack Nicholson and Drew Barrymore, directors like Coppola, and musicians like... there are far too many to list It would be far easier to list all musicians that have never used pot.
If cannabis can give us only one more album like The Dark Side of the Moon, one more book like Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (better known as Blade Runner) and one more movie like Apocalypse Now, it is worth legalizing for that reason alone, imho. I think it would be unfair to label people hedonists if they consume weed to boost their creativity and artistic inspiration, to gain new insights in and different perspectives on scientific issues (Sagan wrote that he used marijuana in this way), to increase their appreciation for art, or to have spiritual experiences as a non-religious person.
And there is nothing wrong with a little hedonism either, imho. I don't see why people shouldn't occasionally use pot to have sex that lasts two hours, followed by a ten minute orgasm. Or simply to unwind every once in a while. I only see a problem when people take drugs because their life sucks if they don't, because they have no future perspective and drugs are the only thing that makes their lives worth while for an hour or two. That's the kind of drug use that quickly becomes habitual, gets out of hand and destroys lives, and I think this can only be prevented by changing social conditions to give everybody a purpose and a fair chance in life.
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 Age: 21 Posts: 112 Location: Zionsville, USA
Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 3:21 am Post subject:
sage_gerard wrote:
Delphiki wrote:
Then why are you the one making the claim that there are long term side effects if you cannot come up with any?
(abacacus did say the obvious one I forgot of smoke inhalation)
I like how you changed I am not your damn secretary to I am not your secretary, kid. So now you are saying because I am younger than you I don't know what I am talking about, sounds familier
It does not take much thought to deduce that risks come with ingesting smoke as opposed to not ingesting smoke. I do not owe you a citation every time I say something.
Please look the info you want to see so badly up yourself.
If you oppose the legalization of cannabis due to the fact that it has detrimental long-term side effects, then does it follow that all substances with such effects should also be illegal? Alcohol and tobacco are legal and both have undeniably bad effects on one's health. Both are also recognized by most to be addictive as well. Why should these substances be viewed as more worthy of legality than cannabis? _________________ And what exactly is a dream?
And what exactly is a joke?
Then why are you the one making the claim that there are long term side effects if you cannot come up with any?
(abacacus did say the obvious one I forgot of smoke inhalation)
I like how you changed I am not your damn secretary to I am not your secretary, kid. So now you are saying because I am younger than you I don't know what I am talking about, sounds familier
It does not take much thought to deduce that risks come with ingesting smoke as opposed to not ingesting smoke. I do not owe you a citation every time I say something.
Please look the info you want to see so badly up yourself.
If you oppose the legalization of cannabis due to the fact that it has detrimental long-term side effects, then does it follow that all substances with such effects should also be illegal? Alcohol and tobacco are legal and both have undeniably bad effects on one's health. Both are also recognized by most to be addictive as well. Why should these substances be viewed as more worthy of legality than cannabis?
If I understand sage_gerard correctly (I think I misunderstood him at first), he doesn't want to prohibit anything. If cannabis was meat, he would be a vegan who argues against meat based on ethical and/or health
concerns, but doesn't want meat to become illegal. I think he merely tries to convince people that his drug-free lifestyle is healthier.
Personally, I think that a life with moderate use of low-risk drugs, such as a pot brownie or a glass of wine once or twice a week, is about as healthy as an extremely health-conscious, ascetic lifestyle. Maybe even healthier due to the benefit of regular stress relief. There are good and bad reasons to use drugs imho, and there are also ways in which moderate drug use can be beneficial to society (such as music and art that were inspired by a psychedelic high). In my opinion, cannabis is far more likely to be used in a reasonable and beneficial way than any other psychoactive drug.
PS: I currently don't use any drugs other than caffeine, pharmaceuticals and herbal remedies. But the only reason that I abstain from cannabis and alcohol is the negative effect that it has on my Crohn's disease. If I could afford it (health wise), I would get high every now and then. I think my life would be a little richer for it, and I might be able to get along without antidepressants.
Then why are you the one making the claim that there are long term side effects if you cannot come up with any?
(abacacus did say the obvious one I forgot of smoke inhalation)
I like how you changed I am not your damn secretary to I am not your secretary, kid. So now you are saying because I am younger than you I don't know what I am talking about, sounds familier
It does not take much thought to deduce that risks come with ingesting smoke as opposed to not ingesting smoke. I do not owe you a citation every time I say something.
Please look the info you want to see so badly up yourself.
If you oppose the legalization of cannabis due to the fact that it has detrimental long-term side effects, then does it follow that all substances with such effects should also be illegal? Alcohol and tobacco are legal and both have undeniably bad effects on one's health. Both are also recognized by most to be addictive as well. Why should these substances be viewed as more worthy of legality than cannabis?
If I understand sage_gerard correctly (I think I misunderstood him at first), he doesn't want to prohibit anything. If cannabis was meat, he would be a vegan who argues against meat based on ethical and/or health
concerns, but doesn't want meat to become illegal. I think he merely tries to convince people that his drug-free lifestyle is healthier.
Personally, I think that a life with moderate use of low-risk drugs, such as a pot brownie or a glass of wine once or twice a week, is about as healthy as an extremely health-conscious, ascetic lifestyle. Maybe even healthier due to the benefit of regular stress relief. There are good and bad reasons to use drugs imho, and there are also ways in which moderate drug use can be beneficial to society (such as music and art that were inspired by a high). In my opinion, cannabis is far more likely to be used in a reasonable and beneficial way than any other psychoactive drug.
PS: I currently don't take any drug other than prescription pharmaceuticals, herbal remedies and caffeine. But that's only because both cannabis and alcohol trigger my Crohn's symptoms. If it wasn't for that, I would treat myself to the occasional beer or vaporizer hit. I think my life would be a lot richer if I was able to do that, and I might get along without antidepressants.
I think the reason it is illegal is because it has a demotivating affect on the user. And our governments need us to be stimulated (with drugs like caffeine) so we can continue working and shopping. They don't want us lounging around and doing too much thinking. They want us not thinking and doing.
In that case, why isn't meth and coke legal?
Meth and coke are too intense on the user and they are highly addictive.
Joined: Apr 25, 2010 Age: 26 Posts: 7028 Location: Mega City 3
Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 8:26 am Post subject:
sage_gerard wrote:
I'm waiting for marijuana to become legal so that potheads will shut the hell up.
Sorry. Its not that I oppose pro-weed legislation. I'm just tired of wannabe rebels yammering on and on about it. It makes me wonder how addictive the stuff really is.
As someone who can't smoke it due to mental health issues, I feel the same way as you do. _________________ The mess has ended. Go home in pieces.
Joined: Apr 25, 2010 Age: 26 Posts: 7028 Location: Mega City 3
Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 8:58 am Post subject:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Now I am curious about what these terrible long term effects of cannabis are....I mean i know some risks associated with smoking cannabis but that's the smoking doing the harm not the cannabis. Other then that they have not found it damages the brain or body.
I have very bad psychotic episodes when I smoke. Getting stoned is like a form of torture to me. I think if I did it even semi-regularly, I'd certainly end up being sectioned.
I have depression with psychotic features, anyway, currently in remission, thank non-existent god. Being stoned is a whole other level of depressed and psychotic compared to my absolute worst. If my absolute natural worst was -10, being stoned is -100. It's like I'm psychologically allergic to THC. Like some people are allergic to peanuts, but that's not enough reason to ban them.
I support cannabis legalisation even though I hate the stuff. _________________ The mess has ended. Go home in pieces.
It would be far easier to list all musicians that have never used pot.
