Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reefer madness anyone? Despite it being illegal a majority of Americans have done or currently smoke weed. The consequences you speak of would have already happened if they were going to.
I am quite aware of its function and if you think it does not have an effect on ability to function normally, then you argue the case of a drunk claiming he can drive fine. I have a certification in POST (Police Officers Standards of Training) and understand not only its long term physical effects, but its short term effects in use. I also have used it myself and am aware from an inside perspective as well. Pot head logic fails on me, sorry try again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
Interestingly enough all the pot smokers I know also smoke cigars, hookah tobacco, cigarettes or cloves and I am thinking that might be the case more generally, but I would have to see a study to know. It is best not to confuse big government, anti-privacy liberals with pro-pot people who tend, to have a more libertarian view of liberalism. You will find a lot of the same divisions among liberals in regards to discussions on right to privacy and regulating violence in video games.
I am sure they differ in groups. I have known those who have done both as well. I also have known those who swear tobacco is harmful and pot is not. Although, I must admit their understanding of basic chemistry is extremely poor. The fact remains that even on this board in the "anti-tobacco" forums, I have heard bone heads claim Pot to be less harmful when in fact it contains the same carcinogens as tobacco minus the specifics between them (THC vs Nicotine).
As I said, I really do not care if people smoke it. My problem is in the brain dead idiots who attempt to claim differences between them when they couldn't figure out their head from their ass.
You could even take it a step further and say the original gateway drug is caffeine.
The whole "gateway" theory is bunk, unless you count the fact that the underground dealers who sell pot because it's illegal are also selling cocaine and other stuff. Of course, when I was underage, I couldn't buy any booze or cigs but I had no problem whatsoever scoring a bag of weed. No ID, fake or otherwise, necessary.
My adolescent psychology professor in college who is also a medical doctor would soundly disagree with you.
How are the industries that test their employees going to react if this stupid bill in passed? How we really going to trust people not to smoke when they are addicted to pot? What happens when pot no longer give people that sweet high? What are the chances that they use ever more powerful drugs? This whole thing sticks even more than the pot itself.
You know---I've worked in a few places that "drug test". I always ended up working with drunks and meth freaks, because that doesn't stay in your system 30 days like weed does.
Thats not what I heard. It five times more deadly than cigaretts beside being a gateway drug.
The only reason it is a gate way drug is because it is illegal. Essentially because one has to go to the black market. This exposition to the black market is where the "gateway drug" idea comes into effect. Once a person becomes exposed to the illegal drug market for pot they are occasionally offered other stuff like opium for example that a dealer may have gotten their hands on. If pot was legal and sold in marijuana control stores it would not be a gateway drug because those stories would be regulated and would only sell pot and not anything they got their hands on like many drug dealers do.
Additionally it is not more deadly then cigarettes and alcohol. Here is a study, mainly alcohol v marijuana, but the information shows nicotine is far worse in many ways then THC and presents the CDC statistics on deaths from marijuana overdose from 2001 which, amounted to a total of 0
You know---I've worked in a few places that "drug test". I always ended up working with drunks and meth freaks, because that doesn't stay in your system 30 days like weed does.
Have you ever heard of random drug test? Yes they do happen.
The only reason it is a gate way drug is because it is illegal. Essentially because one has to go to the black market. This exposition to the black market is where the "gateway drug" idea comes into effect. Once a person becomes exposed to the illegal drug market for pot they are occasionally offered other stuff like opium for example that a dealer may have gotten their hands on. If pot was legal and sold in marijuana control stores it would not be a gateway drug because those stories would be regulated and would only sell pot and not anything they got their hands on like many drug dealers do.
How does one regulate a person who uses pot or any other drug without caution or reason? Human beings have a pretty bad track record when dealing with reason or logic.
Have you ever heard of random drug test? Yes they do happen.
Drug testing is expensive. A lot of companies do the minimum that allows them an insurance break...after initial pre-hire testing, it's usually just done if there is an accident anymore. And even in random tests the average meth idiot or drunk has a better chance of passing than an occasional smoker. Not my problem anymore, though. But as an employer I'd prefer someone who smokes a little weed now and then rather than someone who does meth or has a drinking problem.
I am quite aware of its function and if you think it does not have an effect on ability to function normally, then you argue the case of a drunk claiming he can drive fine. I have a certification in POST (Police Officers Standards of Training) and understand not only its long term physical effects, but its short term effects in use. I also have used it myself and am aware from an inside perspective as well. Pot head logic fails on me, sorry try again.
I am sure they differ in groups. I have known those who have done both as well. I also have known those who swear tobacco is harmful and pot is not. Although, I must admit their understanding of basic chemistry is extremely poor. The fact remains that even on this board in the "anti-tobacco" forums, I have heard bone heads claim Pot to be less harmful when in fact it contains the same carcinogens as tobacco minus the specifics between them (THC vs Nicotine).
As I said, I really do not care if people smoke it. My problem is in the brain dead idiots who attempt to claim differences between them when they couldn't figure out their head from their ass.
I'm interested to hear how much more you know about long term effects of marijuana than the experts. There are no conclusive long term effects as far as unbiased studies have shown. If you get your information from the DEA you are grossly mislead.
You should read the news (and there's a thread on C-D about it) about the anti-drug researcher who has studied marijuana's effects on lungs and lung cancer for i think 30 years, and has recently changed his mind about pot being as harmful as tobacco. He's literally the top expert on marijuana-lung effects. You just have biased propaganda training to go from.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
