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.
Oh I really doubt it will be legal anytime soon, too many competing interests have too much to lose if it is. Nevermind that many doctors are prescribing it to HELP people,there is still too much $$$ at stake,
Just like twinkies, if overindulged,it produces bad results.Seriously,too many twinkies ,or beer, are more dangerous than too many doobies.
Try it,I dare ya.
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.
I will concede your point, the studies are inconclusive much like SHS and epidemiological studies in general.
As for the claim of Pot vs Tobbacco, well again we find ourselves in the field of inconclusive claims which often are tailored to fit a bias.
I will say this, both share similarity in their chemical breakdown while burning, which is the key to the arguments of for or against. I am sure the argument could be made that ingesting avoids such, but again we start getting into the realms of inconclusive claims.
Personally, I do not care what people choose to do. It is their choice, their lives. I do however think that like alcohol, its altered state does have impairment on various motor and decision abilities. While "testing" (simulation studies) is inconclusive as to a consistency in their impairment and alcohol does tend to show a greater impairment, the fact remains that it should not be allowed use as is similar to that of alcohol and others substances while functioning in various environments.
Marijuana impairs function. That is well known and not the point. The question is should it be legalized. I am simply stating that the illegal usage is already prevalent enough that if catastrophic problems were to occur they more than likely already would have.
I have no problems with it being legal, the only reason I think a drug should be illegal is when it has consistently shown in its use that it can endanger "others" such is shown with the use of PCP and similar drugs. Other than that, what people choose to do is their own business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
I am not a person on an anti-tobacco website. I in fact oppose and continue to oppose the recent smoking ban North Carolina placed on bars and dining establishments. I will however stay that because of the frequency of tobacco use and the fact that it has very low intoxicating effect it is used more often and will be used more often then Marijuana, and as such will be more dangerous to health simply because of the fact that more smoke and crap you put in your lungs the better chance it will kill you.
As to brain dead idiots there are and will always be a lot of them regardless of the laws on pot. Just as we lock up people who are violent when they are drunk or drive and/or operate machinary while drunk. We should lock up people who commit crimes under the influence of weed.
I hope this helps explain my first post.
That is my concern, the hypocrisy of those who support the use of cannabis and advocate the heavy taxation and banning in use of tobacco. Their arguments are self serving without regard to a logical position. There have been arguments that due to the method to which people smoke cannabis, its infrequency of use is invalidated. That is, exposure standards are dependent on PEL (Permissible Exposure Limits) and these limits are breached and sustained for a longer amount of time through its use. A burn is still a burn regardless of how long you hold your hand into the fire. Again though, these studies are often inconclusive on all levels do to their evaluation nature.
As for the idiots, agreed, that is my personal stance on these things. Laws should be in affect to which establish punishment for the crimes that are actually committed, not established based on the possibility that a crime could be committed through its use. While it would happen anyway, I do not wish to see "excuses" placed on the substance to absolve one of their behavior which is often done with alcohol.
I have no problems with them making many of these drugs illegal, as long those who choose to use them are held fully responsible for any negative result through their use. My only support for a law against them is that if we allow the negation of responsibility for their use, then we are better of making them illegal from the start. If they are legal, it opens up too much claims to avoid responsibility while if it remains illegally, there can be no excuse to their use. As I said though, other than that I have no problems with people making choices on their own and being responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Yes, your explanation made things more clear. Much appreciated.
That is my concern, the hypocrisy of those who support the use of cannabis and advocate the heavy taxation and banning in use of tobacco.
For the record, making tobacco illegal will just create more problems associated with the black market and organized crime as well as make it easier for kids to obtain tobacco, just like any high school kid can find a dealer if they want to and buy pot, cocaine, whatever.
Nomander still seems to think there are no alternative means to using cannabis beyond smoking. He must not be as smart as he thinks he is.
And the effects of those uses are as inconclusive as well. If you are claiming ingesting is safe, then you make an argument to which is unverified and unsupported. Remember, there are other ways to use tobacco as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81
Then what are you on about?
The ignorance of support for one side and the condemnation of another. I have known those who believe tobacco to be a great evil that should be taxed heavily or banned while proclaiming cannabis to be natural, safe, and beneficial. It is an ignorant support as it uses personal subjective reasoning to proclaim objective validity.
My concern is seeing this lunacy result in cannabis being allowed in places while tobacco is banned.
As I said, I have no problems with people making their own choices. This is the corner stone of the tobacco position. If you dislike it, do not stay around it. This would be the same concerning cannabis, yet many hold a double standard. If that hypocrisy is the result then I would refuse to support its legalization. Either we are objective or we are subjective. I am willing to take either stance based on the position of others.
For the record, making tobacco illegal will just create more problems associated with the black market and organized crime as well as make it easier for kids to obtain tobacco, just like any high school kid can find a dealer if they want to and buy pot, cocaine, whatever.
That may be the case and there is plenty of evidence that appears to support your claim. Though "illegal" is not what would be the problem. Banning its locational use and taxing it heavily serves to provide more control than simply banning. The hypocrisy would be seeing cannabis legal and usable freely while tobacco is restricted heavily, though still legal.
And the effects of those uses are as inconclusive as well. If you are claiming ingesting is safe, then you make an argument to which is unverified and unsupported. Remember, there are other ways to use tobacco as well.
The ignorance of support for one side and the condemnation of another. I have known those who believe tobacco to be a great evil that should be taxed heavily or banned while proclaiming cannabis to be natural, safe, and beneficial. It is an ignorant support as it uses personal subjective reasoning to proclaim objective validity.
My concern is seeing this lunacy result in cannabis being allowed in places while tobacco is banned.
As I said, I have no problems with people making their own choices. This is the corner stone of the tobacco position. If you dislike it, do not stay around it. This would be the same concerning cannabis, yet many hold a double standard. If that hypocrisy is the result then I would refuse to support its legalization. Either we are objective or we are subjective. I am willing to take either stance based on the position of others.
Why don't you consider taking a stance based on what you think is right instead of following other people?
For the record, I've known a lot of people involved in pro-cannabis activism and I can't think of a single one who was also lobbying to have tobacco outlawed. You're railing on about something that hardly exists as I see it anyway.
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.
