Time for a debate! I noticed that there is some debating going on in the "4/20" thread, but this is a better thread to post arguments in! Just 2 rules:
1) be courteous!
2) cite your sources!
Let the games begin :)
I'm on the fence about this one. Even if it becomes legal, it would still be banned for the military as it falls under the category of "mind-altering drug or substance"
Yes ;)
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html
Quote from: rarehuntertay on April 27, 2014, 10:54:02 AM
I'm on the fence about this one. Even if it becomes legal, it would still be banned for the military as it falls under the category of "mind-altering drug or substance"
I'm sure this definition can be altered if fully legalized.
We have 22 medical marijuana legal states as of today taysby. Much more than two. And again no, there are less carcinogens than tobacco.
And Holland.
Someone please find the study tht shows no link to cancer and marijuana use, showing that marijuana users have the same or lower rates of cancer than non users, and lower rates than cigarette smokers
Im horribly lazy with the google
The debate is for the USA because different countries have different policies, economies, values, precedents, etc.. It would be dificult to argue for or against the legalization of anything for all of them. But feel free to use different countries as an example for your arguments. It's not like the different countries of the world have nothing in common with America!
No its about marijuana smokers not people who extract pure THC
I live in Pennsylvania which has a reputation for being slow with this. That being said I don't always agree with the policies for this substance, and even though I don't partake of it don't frown on it either. What I do dislike is that people are taking a substance that has been grown in other countries for years, and breeding these plants to have insane amounts of THC. I had the ability to speak with a person who has smoked it over the years, and has admitted that the pot of the 60-80s is far weaker than today. As I always say, to each their own so long as I am not at risk from it.
Its not that THC has been boosted its that there were weaker strains and stronger strains right? And over the years, popularity and connectivity of the world have allowed the finer strains to be bred together, so its more or less the same .poo.(just the higher end strains of the 70s) available to all and grown under perfected conditions from years of practice.
So yes for the average consumer it has become more potent, but for those reasons.
So in conclusion, yay :)
I think another important question is should marijuana be illegal? It is currently a "Schedule 1" drug along side heroin and meth. The definition for a "Schedule 1" drug, according to the DEA is as follows:
Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence.
There are two parts to this definition that I would like to discuss. The first part discusses that the substance must have no "accepted medical use". The government has made it nearly impossible for scientists to study marijuana and thus, the medical use is not yet fully understood. This seems ludicrous, considering the government's patent on cannabinoids, as posted above, and for the government's refusal to even test the substance to prove its use, or nonuse. How can a substance that has no history of overdose be categorized anywhere near something like heroin without hard facts to back it up? I understand that there is danger assoiciated with smoking and driving, but that should be regulated separately like drinking and driving. Until the government, or anyone else, can give me a good reason that it is a Schedule 1 drug, I will continue to believe it should be immediately removed from that designation, and actually studied and understood. Then the government, with the help of scientists should determine its legal status.
edit for source:
http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml
For reference someone should list schedule 2 and 3 drugs then remind everyone that alcohol and tobacco products are legal
But yea i tried to make the point that there hasnt been fair extensive testing on marijuana to prove its either harmful OR beneficial... Its way too controlled to even fairly test it, its LUDICROUS
Legalize it and tax it. It's no worse than alcohol or cigarettes.
I think its better :p
And yea at least make money on it instea of wasting taxpayer money to waste it and incarcerate(sp?) users... Its a simple debate, lose money or gain money? Hmmmm
Clearly its not that simple just trying to make a point
Quote from: MisterJH on April 28, 2014, 12:37:10 AM
I think its better :p
And yea at least make money on it instea of wasting taxpayer money to waste it and incarcerate(sp?) users... Its a simple debate, lose money or gain money? Hmmmm
Clearly its not that simple just trying to make a point
It's easier to argue that it's no worse than legal stuff. If you try to state otherwise, people like to prove you wrong(taysby).
Quote from: MisterJH on April 27, 2014, 11:15:47 PM
For reference someone should list schedule 2 and 3 drugs then remind everyone that alcohol and tobacco products are legal
But yea i tried to make the point that there hasnt been fair extensive testing on marijuana to prove its either harmful OR beneficial... Its way too controlled to even fairly test it, its LUDICROUS
Schedule II drugs:
Cocaine
Percocet
OxyContin
Morphine
Meperidine
Codeine
Et al. (Too many to list)
Schedule III drugs:
Any medication with Codeine
Any other narcotic pain reliever
Et al. (Too many to list)
Also individual states and practices can increase the schedule of a medication but not decrease it.
Example: my prior work had Stadol, which is a Schedule V drug used for the treatment of migraines, as a Schedule II
But.. Its not?
And spencer i was just making another point, we should cash in on the black market of ganj we might as well get something out of it!
Taysby please find a link comparing non smokers to cigarette smokers to exclusively marijuana smokers, and if you post that and it shows marijuana to be worse(from a fair source) well youve got my vote
What criteria are you judging it as 'worse than cigarettes' on? The only thing icould possibly think of is marijuana is more impairing than nicotine(if youre referring to intoxication NOT withdrawal)
Quote from: Taysby on April 28, 2014, 09:24:07 AM
Quote from: Spencer Addington on April 28, 2014, 12:39:45 AM
Quote from: MisterJH on April 28, 2014, 12:37:10 AM
I think its better :p
And yea at least make money on it instea of wasting taxpayer money to waste it and incarcerate(sp?) users... Its a simple debate, lose money or gain money? Hmmmm
Clearly its not that simple just trying to make a point
It's easier to argue that it's no worse than legal stuff. If you try to state otherwise, people like to prove you wrong(taysby).
It is worse than cigaretts. (Link coming soon, I just need computer access)
Please just give us the link already? I'm "dying" to know how I'm going to get cancer at 30 and die horribly like you've been suggesting
i think the surgeon general warning is a good start to show cigarettes are more harmful than marijuana. first of all, marijuana, or the active cannabinoids in them, don't need to be smoked to be ingested. These chemicals can be broken down into pill or drop form in laboratories. Marijuana can also be used in cooking and vaporized. These are all obviously healthier alternatives to smoking any kind of plant, marijuana or tobacco. But in terms of smoking marijuana vs. smoking cigarettes, its still no contest. Marijuana has no history of causing lung cancer or mouth cancer or anything similar. Cigarettes do have that history. Please don't just keep posting cause you saw one fact on one site that thinks that cigarettes are good and marijuana is bad. You cannot definitely say Marijuana is unhealthy because it hasn't been studied enough. You can cigarettes are unhealthy because they have been studied.
Back to the point of its hard to spout any info on weed besides anecdotal evidence becasw of the lack of real study of it
Mayo clinic is using very very dated info about cannabis taysby. You shouldn't use it as fact for cannabis.
Dont you dare say mayo clinic is wrong!
I joke, i trust mayo clinic about as much as i trust any other study.. Not at all really
And unless the study says that marijuana users have higher rates of cancer, the carcinogens argument doesnt work. If we all eat a plate of carcinogens every day but our cancer rates dont go up then just maybe its benign and is just pointless facts. Im aware there ARE carcinogens but im also fairly certain the cancer rates arent any higher so why does it matter?
Quote from: Taysby on April 28, 2014, 03:24:17 PM
If you want to know now, do a search for "mayo clinic marajuana carcinogens". That should bring it up.
did you even read what i said taysby? one source with old info is not a strong enough argument. carcinogens exist whenever something is burned, no matter what. so that burger on the grill, that has carcinogens in it. but marijuana doesnt need to be smoked to be consumed, as mentioned above, so does not have to provide carcinogens.
Quote from: Taysby on April 28, 2014, 07:53:47 PM
My whole argument is just when it is smoked! I haven't been claiming anything else. I realize that they haven't found anything else, yet. It's like cigaretts, you should be able to do it, but it's a poor decision if you value your health.
But your whole argument is outdated... Mayo clinic, where you are getting your sources. does not have up to date facts and could very well have biased views on marijuana. One source is not enough to build a solid argument after. You don't seem to be having the easiest of time with these discussions they're pretty one sided, does anyone have some sources that differ from mayo clinics views that taysby could maybe read? If he wants that is
Wow, I hate to agree with Piotr here ( :P ), but I also think that marijuana should be legal. I think it's stupid that alcohol and tobacco are both legal, while being worse for your health. Also, marijuana is arguably less mind altering than alcohol. Lastly, we could put all sorts of excise taxes on it and pay for schools.
Quote from: Taysby on April 28, 2014, 07:53:47 PM
My whole argument is just when it is smoked! I haven't been claiming anything else. I realize that they haven't found anything else, yet. It's like cigaretts, you should be able to do it, but it's a poor decision if you value your health.
but see even a quote like this is misguided. many scientists are currently trying to assess the medical benefits of cannabis. so saying "its a poor decision if you value your health" seems really silly. many people who value their health still want science to be the foremost factor when determining whatever medical treatment they may need. Propaganda and Reefer Madness are not strong enough arguments without the facts to back them up. And both Piotr and I provided sources in our first post.
Quote from: MisterJH on April 27, 2014, 09:09:49 PM
Its not that THC has been boosted its that there were weaker strains and stronger strains right? And over the years, popularity and connectivity of the world have allowed the finer strains to be bred together, so its more or less the same .poo.(just the higher end strains of the 70s) available to all and grown under perfected conditions from years of practice.
So yes for the average consumer it has become more potent, but for those reasons.
So in conclusion, yay :)
Hey! I accidentally negged you! Tomorrow I'll +1 you back then another +1 for the trouble lol
Quote from: Taysby on April 29, 2014, 05:30:54 PM
Quote from: particle on April 29, 2014, 12:05:21 PM
Quote from: Taysby on April 28, 2014, 07:53:47 PM
My whole argument is just when it is smoked! I haven't been claiming anything else. I realize that they haven't found anything else, yet. It's like cigaretts, you should be able to do it, but it's a poor decision if you value your health.
but see even a quote like this is misguided. many scientists are currently trying to assess the medical benefits of cannabis. so saying "its a poor decision if you value your health" seems really silly. many people who value their health still want science to be the foremost factor when determining whatever medical treatment they may need. Propaganda and Reefer Madness are not strong enough arguments without the facts to back them up. And both Piotr and I provided sources in our first post.
1. Your source just said what types of drugs are schedule 1,2,3,4,5. It didn't really prove anything.
2. Just using cannibis is great. Go ahead. But when people use it for recreational use, 99% of the time! they will smoke it. Which is bad.
99% is grievously wrong! I know many people who can't smoke, so they vape or make them into delicious treat.
86% of percentages are completely made up on the spot!
Quote from: MisterJH on April 29, 2014, 06:26:57 PM
86% of percentages are completely made up on the spot!
79% of stair accidents happen on the stairs
Quote from: Sparkle Ninja on April 29, 2014, 07:14:07 PM
Quote from: MisterJH on April 29, 2014, 06:26:57 PM
86% of percentages are completely made up on the spot!
79% of stair accidents happen on the stairs
82% of people don't know that the bird is the word.
And 69% of people are perverted.
I have a completely unscientific arguement to make. Drugs are artificial happiness. You should be spending time actually becoming happy for legitimate reasons, not because of chemicals from a burning plant. I understand that some people need it because they're depressed and stuff, but at that point you should be going to a therapist.
Quote from: DimirOverlord1300 on April 29, 2014, 10:54:10 PM
I have a completely unscientific arguement to make. Drugs are artificial happiness. You should be spending time actually becoming happy for legitimate reasons, not because of chemicals from a burning plant. I understand that some people need it because they're depressed and stuff, but at that point you should be going to a therapist.
I smoke, and thinking about it now I only smoke when I'm in a good mood. Weed isn't an artificial drug too... It's all natural baby.
A lot of drugs actually enhance your current mood, so if depressed alcohol or marijuana can exacerbate your condition
That being said, inherently unsatisfied people can numb themselves with drugs, and thats a horrible way to use said drugs
However for those of sound mind and body its not artificial happiness, its just a way to relax and enjoy an altered state of mind. Thats like saying people who visit other countries should just learn to be happy in their own ;)
Sure, America is amazing but every once in awhile i like to visit stoned America.. err i mean Italy! Lets go with Italy!
Quote from: DimirOverlord1300 on April 29, 2014, 10:54:10 PM
I have a completely unscientific arguement to make. Drugs are artificial happiness. You should be spending time actually becoming happy for legitimate reasons, not because of chemicals from a burning plant. I understand that some people need it because they're depressed and stuff, but at that point you should be going to a therapist.
By this logic, eating chocolate is artificial happiness, isn't it? What are legitimate reasons to be happy? Do you agree that everyone should be free to pursue their own happiness, or should we provide standardised happiness to everyone?
People have the right to do what ever makes th happy. Smoking or what have it. But the problem is when ones pursuit of happiness conflicts with another's. I think the argument is not about is it morally right or if it's artificial but, is making pot legal going to inflict problems on other peoples lives or will it lessen that. This is the real question I have.
I have no problem with that guy drinking himself to death but I do when he becomes a problem of the states. Will pot end with the same problems? And let's not forget the economical issues of who and where this money will go.
Well the war on drugs is a huge problem if you value your money, look up the cost to inarcerate someone for a year and the amount of people in prison for drug charges
Thats what i call interfering with my life damnit
Quote from: Walkhard on April 30, 2014, 04:48:32 AM
People have the right to do what ever makes th happy. Smoking or what have it. But the problem is when ones pursuit of happiness conflicts with another's. I think the argument is not about is it morally right or if it's artificial but, is making pot legal going to inflict problems on other peoples lives or will it lessen that. This is the real question I have.
I have no problem with that guy drinking himself to death but I do when he becomes a problem of the states. Will pot end with the same problems? And let's not forget the economical issues of who and where this money will go.
We already have tools to combat that: if they steal or lie or murder we can punish them. The fact that they do harm under the influence of this or that substance is not really relevant.
If you try to ban things in anticipation of crime, you are shooting yourself in the foot. It doesn't work.
I said war on drugs as a general statement in response to the do whtever you want as long as it doesnt affect me post
People only realy get jailed for a loooot of weed which is pretty dumb to have anyways
Although there are a bunch of dumb rules about 'intent to sell' and whatnt
I know i said 'although'
And how can i use it if i cant buy it? Like damn dont hate the supplier of our demand :/
Also because of the specificity of some rules you can have small quantities that you have no intention of selling and still get busted for intent to sell, theres some rule about multiple bags and all kinds of dumb crap
Which is silly because i regularly would buy 3-4 different strains at a time in different bags just cuz i like to have a good time
I was simply making a point not arguing with anything
What is happiness? By what norm does society determine to be happiness? If what one does creates happiness for them, and doesn't interfere with other people, then why do they get punished for it?
Look at my example of visiting other countries damnit >:( i thought it was a good comparison
Quote from: Taysby on April 30, 2014, 05:58:20 PM
Happiness is long term enjoyment of life. Drugs don't give you happiness. They give you pleasure. Pleasure is short term. As soon as the high goes away, you don't feel good.
Sorry, just had to clear that up. You can continue your argument by replacing happiness with pleasure, and I won't really be able to hit you with anything except my last argument.
How do you know you don't feel good after the high? I feel tired after the high and sleep like a baby. Sure I have a little cotton mouth, but it's nothing water can't fix.
Marijuana is actually a hallucinogen so it technically doesnt make you feel happy, just different. The only cases where it makes you feel 'happy' is when youre unhappy to begin with. For most people it just makes them feel different, then when the high is done they sleep for a couple hours and feel completely normal. No happiness is involved, its just an altered state of mind. The same way alcohol doesnt exactly make you happy, just behave differently. Its nothing like MDMA which actually stimulates the release of 'happy chemicals.'
Anyway you guys can hash this out already.
Quote from: Rass on April 30, 2014, 09:43:03 PM
Anyway you guys can "hash" this out already.
I see what you did there, sneaky bugga.
Quote from: Taysby on April 30, 2014, 09:56:12 PM
Quote from: Spencer Addington on April 30, 2014, 06:02:14 PM
Quote from: Taysby on April 30, 2014, 05:58:20 PM
Happiness is long term enjoyment of life. Drugs don't give you happiness. They give you pleasure. Pleasure is short term. As soon as the high goes away, you don't feel good.
Sorry, just had to clear that up. You can continue your argument by replacing happiness with pleasure, and I won't really be able to hit you with anything except my last argument.
How do you know you don't feel good after the high? I feel tired after the high and sleep like a baby. Sure I have a little cotton mouth, but it's nothing water can't fix.
*You don't feel the desire able way you do during your high
Desirable way?
Quote from: Taysby on April 30, 2014, 10:14:50 PM
If they way you feel isn't desire able then why are you using it for recreation?
I never said it wasn't desirable.
Quote from: Taysby on April 30, 2014, 05:58:20 PM
Happiness is long term enjoyment of life. Drugs don't give you happiness. They give you pleasure. Pleasure is short term. As soon as the high goes away, you don't feel good.
Sorry, just had to clear that up. You can continue your argument by replacing happiness with pleasure, and I won't really be able to hit you with anything except my last argument.
See but you are confusing pleasure and short term release. It's not about creating pleasure it's about relaxing stress through means of chemicals. I personally do not smoke even though I have nothing against it or someone who does. But I admit that I drink (enough for the two of us) for my "release", it's about letting the stress from the day go away for a period of time. Some people drink, some people smoke, some people pray, some people beat their kids, to each his own. ( kids thing was a joke by the way, I would never hurt my children and I do not endorse people who do).
Quote from: Taysby on April 30, 2014, 10:48:24 PM
But using chemicals to do it never lasts. You are released for as long as the chemicals have an effect, and then you're back to normal, then you drink more and more and rape your liver.
Moderation is a thing people are capable of...
Quote from: Taysby on April 30, 2014, 11:22:28 PM
The general cycle if you're trying to block out pain, is to keep doing it. They can do it in moderation, but they don't. (Most of the time, if for above reason)
There are always going to be people that abuse a product. Then there's the other 80ish% that use it recreationally and don't abuse. It's hard to abuse weed too. If you don't smoke it you can't really die from it. The only scenario in which weed can kill is if a pallet of it falls on you and crushes you to death.
I had a friend in college that would go through a pound a week. He was the basketball team, and the funny thing was, he absolutely could not play if he was sober. But after smoking, he was one of the best players I have ever seen. Kinda weird thinking about it.
Quote from: rarehuntertay on May 01, 2014, 12:52:50 AM
I had a friend in college that would go through a pound a week. He was the basketball team, and the funny thing was, he absolutely could not play if he was sober. But after smoking, he was one of the best players I have ever seen. Kinda weird thinking about it.
No it is not weird, marijuana makes you think in different way to your normal thinking. In a lot of people it induces ideas they would not otherwise have, it makes them think more 'out of the box' than they normally do. There are some problems related to this, but I can see how these would not matter much in a fast paced physical game such as basketball. I would imagine it would help in table tennis too.
Ok but people abuse the wazoo out of keyboard cleaners, doesnt mean it wont clean 99% of peoples keyboards very well
Youre making an argument for the few percent that use drugs to deal with psychological problems, which is bad yes but not something to base an argument off of
Maybe those same people would commit suicide or who knows what without marijuana
Chances are theyd still never solve their issues but theyd be unhapy and sober all the time which is even less pleasing
You cant say its a bad product because not every single person can use it effectively, theres no product that works for everyone except food
Quote from: Taysby on April 30, 2014, 09:37:54 AM
http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/27/time-reefer-sanity/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
This is an OP Ed. This is not a link to factual sources.
Please cite scientists studies not OP Eds. (Opinion editorials)
Quote from: Spencer Addington on April 30, 2014, 11:48:09 PM
Quote from: Taysby on April 30, 2014, 11:22:28 PM
The general cycle if you're trying to block out pain, is to keep doing it. They can do it in moderation, but they don't. (Most of the time, if for above reason)
There are always going to be people that abuse a product. Then there's the other 80ish% that use it recreationally and don't abuse. It's hard to abuse weed too. If you don't smoke it you can't really die from it. The only scenario in which weed can kill is if a pallet of it falls on you and crushes you to death.
I have no source for this information but I heard that scientists were testing the lethality of marijuana on rats to try to compare the data to humans. so apparently the amount of marijuana a human would need to smoke for lethality would be the weight of the VW beetle. obviously, unless you are locked in a small room and marijuana smoke is being pumped in constantly, it would be impossible for you to consume that much marijuana. any human would pass out long before they could consume that much. and obviously the human would die much faster from oxygen deprivation than they would from a marijuana overdose. i would look for a source but i dont think it matters. taybsy, until you have some source that isnt an op-ed, that supports/proves your sentiments about why most pot smokers use, and why they dont use, please stop presenting your opinions as fact.
Quote from: MisterJH on May 01, 2014, 12:11:40 PMtheres no product that works for everyone except food
As a father of 4yo who is allergic to nuts, milk, eggs, soya - I call a lie on this one ;p
Quote from: Taysby on May 02, 2014, 09:24:15 AM
That experiment was kind of the same thing as water. If you drink enough water, you die from water poisoning. But that isn't likely. It's more likely that that water will carry toxins into your system.
When they're smoke it (not by any other means) they get more carcinogens into their system than when they smoke tobacco which is bad. If they do it to block out pain, instead of just recreation, they will continue to abuse it to keep the pain away. What am i saying that isn't true, other you have a problem with it. It seemed that your last comment had nothing to do with what I was saying.
where are the facts to support this?? not your opinions or a blog? facts? my last comment was mostly referencing the comment made about a pallet falling on you being the only way to kill you, so i was responding to that. then i was responding to your statements that are all presented as fact even though they are opinion. im not trying to jump at you taysby. the point i am trying to make is marijuana has not been studied enough to make such bold statements about. unless you have facts, where is the information that smoking marijuana provides more carcinogens then tobacco? so anyone who takes any kind of medication for pain is a drug abuser, taysby? come on we both know thats not true. some percentage (neither of us know what it is) will abuse marijuana, and some will not.
Both sides are making points, but I see very little blue text (links). The debate will be far more productive and also more enjoyable if you find sources for your claims. Otherwise it's really just one person's opinion against the other!
Also props to everyone on being courteous. Keeping relationships friendly is more important than citing sources!
Id like to point out there is still nothing that has ever shown marijuana is cause of death.
Almost 100 years and no cause of death due to Thc.
And although correlation does not prove causation:
Have a friend on FB who just shared this posting of his friend who he has been providing cannabis oil to:
"Nick Charles
My new scan results am well happy cannabis oil has saved my life tumour almost away so so happy and lucky to be alive much love to Corrie Yelland and Robin Swan for all there help with the medicine xxxxxxx
— with Glad Taylor"
Photo wit post showing scans
https://fbcdn-photos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1.0-0/10306774_10152409389984184_7331218039468735316_n.jpg
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 02, 2014, 01:03:42 PM
Id like to point out there is still nothing that has ever shown marijuana is cause of death.
Almost 100 years and no cause of death due to Thc.
And although correlation does not prove causation:
Have a friend on FB who just shared this posting of his friend who he has been providing cannabis oil to:
"Nick Charles
My new scan results am well happy cannabis oil has saved my life tumour almost away so so happy and lucky to be alive much love to Corrie Yelland and Robin Swan for all there help with the medicine xxxxxxx
— with Glad Taylor"
Photo wit post showing scans
https://fbcdn-photos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1.0-0/10306774_10152409389984184_7331218039468735316_n.jpg
Congrats to your friend.
Story is a few years old:
Elderly woman who lived to 120; smoked weed every day.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulla_Nayak
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on May 02, 2014, 11:48:54 AM
Both sides are making points, but I see very little blue text (links). The debate will be far more productive and also more enjoyable if you find sources for your claims. Otherwise it's really just one person's opinion against the other!
Also props to everyone on being courteous. Keeping relationships friendly is more important than citing sources!
i agree and this is the point i am trying to make. i would love to be citing my sources but they dont exist yet. not enough research has been done to prove marijuana is good or bad or both. so sources are few and far between.
Quote from: Taysby on May 02, 2014, 04:55:02 PM
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 02, 2014, 01:53:04 PM
Story is a few years old:
Elderly woman who lived to 120; smoked weed every day.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulla_Nayak
Some people smoke cigaretts everyday and live log lives. Most people don't though.
I'm sure that's 100% true though! haven't looked at it yet.
It is also a Wikipedia article. Most colleges and universities do not accept Wikipedia as a source, as the information contained therein can be edited by anyone and cannot be readily verified.
Quote from: rarehuntertay on May 02, 2014, 05:46:46 PM
Quote from: Taysby on May 02, 2014, 04:55:02 PM
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 02, 2014, 01:53:04 PM
Story is a few years old:
Elderly woman who lived to 120; smoked weed every day.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulla_Nayak
Some people smoke cigaretts everyday and live log lives. Most people don't though.
I'm sure that's 100% true though! haven't looked at it yet.
It is also a Wikipedia article. Most colleges and universities do not accept Wikipedia as a source, as the information contained therein can be edited by anyone and cannot be readily verified.
Yes, it can. Statistically proven to be 95% accurate, the most accurate internet source.
Quote from: Juvia, Water Woman on May 02, 2014, 06:24:03 PM
Quote from: rarehuntertay on May 02, 2014, 05:46:46 PM
Quote from: Taysby on May 02, 2014, 04:55:02 PM
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 02, 2014, 01:53:04 PM
Story is a few years old:
Elderly woman who lived to 120; smoked weed every day.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulla_Nayak
Some people smoke cigaretts everyday and live log lives. Most people don't though.
I'm sure that's 100% true though! haven't looked at it yet.
It is also a Wikipedia article. Most colleges and universities do not accept Wikipedia as a source, as the information contained therein can be edited by anyone and cannot be readily verified.
Yes, it can. Statistically proven to be 95% accurate, the most accurate internet source.
I know that lol. Just playing the Devil's Advocate here, stating that because it an user-based and edited site, a lot of traditional places will not accept what is presented there. Had a big class debate about it. Eventually the professor came to the compromise where she would not accept Wikipedia as a reference source, as per school regulations, but she would accept references given at the end of a Wikipedia, as long as we did not state the Wikipedia information.
My old LA teacher broke the school rules annually and let us use Wikipedia, and we were the top class in my whole school yearly, lol. It helps.
Smoke weed erryday
WIKIPEDIA CANNOT BE EDITED BY ANYONE
IF YOU TRY AND EDIT WIKIPEDIA IT WONT STAY THAT WAY
THERE ARE 'EMPLOYEES' WHO VERIFY CHANGES BEFORE THEY ARE FINALIZED
For some reason teachers see an 'edit' button and get butthurt because they cant understand that simply clicking that button wont do anything, if you edit wikipedia it doesnt change the whole site, otherwise every page would be 'skicuhe penis boner'
Ive used wikipedia as a source for most everything ive ever done and it has yet to misguide me, its an amazingly reliable source if 'professors' would get their heads out of their hineys
Kid with autism has strained named after him after "it saved his life" according to Mother.
Once again no factual proof but a lot of coincidence with marijuana being beneficial
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=9522438
Also as far as smoking: people have been smoking herbs for centuries, it is apart of our human culture.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_smoking
http://www.businessinsider.com/big-alcohol-donates-money-to-fight-legalization-of-pot-2010-9
Just something i stumbled across today, interesting eh?
Quote from: Taysby on April 27, 2014, 12:21:04 PM
I want it to be legalize so we can regulate, tax, and inform people of the consequences of their actions (including no a bunch of other drugs in this category) because when you smoke it, you inhale more carcinogens than in cigaretts (link coming soon, but I do have it)
Incorrect. Studies show that tobacco and marijuana have the same number of carcinogens, but not joints and cigarettes. Joints are usually hand rolled, and add few to no carcinogens to the marijuana (depending on what you use), but cigarettes are processed so that they have rocket fuel and rat poisons in them, adding a ridiculous amount of carcinogens.
Not when you use sources that are biased. ;) look up granny stormcrows medical marijuana list. You'll see how wrong you truly are.
If marijuana if so bad, why are there 0 deaths attributed to marijuana EVER (source:http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#sthash.dgHcRaV4.dpbs). Yet, Alcohol kills 1 person every 10 seconds (Source: Time Magazine) and tobacco kills someone every minute...in the United States alone (source: CDC) 'Nuf said, I think we can stop this bull about marijuana being "harmful".
Your Sources:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/marijuana/evidence/hrb-20059701
Gives marijuana a B and C on everything, which means helpful or we don't see an effect. Neither of which prove marijuana is dangerous, in fact does the opposite.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)00021-8/fulltext
Ok, this one says there is some correlation with mental disorders if smoked before 16, but says that even skeptics of medical marijuana don't argue that it is bad, only that it doesn't do much as a medicine.
http://www-cgi.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/GA/00014.html
This one finally supports your position, but even the adverse effects it lists aren't that bad: Increased risk of heart attack, Heightened risk of chronic cough and respiratory infections, and Potential for hallucinations and withdrawal symptoms. Notice, it says increased, but doesn't actually give values for how much more likely, indicating that the increase isn't that high. Also, this is one source, the first two basically said marijuana had no adverse effects.
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=GALE%7C00000000LVXO&documentId=GALE%7CPC3021900106&mode=view&userGroupName=p1841&jsid=078d40d7bbe0401ed25e9fe4ef60263f This again points to increased risks, but also lists benefits of marijuana. The article also helps to refute itself and the one above saying, "The Washington Post, stated that there was 'no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.'"
The lesson is, marijuana isn't that bad, but people capitalize on a few studies that say it is, despite all of the other information there is out there. Oh, and even the president agrees with me, when he said marijuana isn't as dangerous as alcohol: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/20/health/marijuana-versus-alcohol/
Oh, and here is article about 33 studies that found marijuana to be a safe and effective drug: http://www.mpp.org/states/washington/press-releases/33-us-clinical-studies-show.html
Lastly, when you think about the few adverse effects of marijuana, read the label on one of your prescription drugs and you will find that there are worse things on that bottle than are on the labels for cannabis.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 12, 2014, 09:47:51 PM
Your Sources:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/marijuana/evidence/hrb-20059701
Gives marijuana a B and C on everything, which means helpful or we don't see an effect. Neither of which prove marijuana is dangerous, in fact does the opposite.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)00021-8/fulltext
Ok, this one says there is some correlation with mental disorders if smoked before 16, but says that even skeptics of medical marijuana don't argue that it is bad, only that it doesn't do much as a medicine.
http://www-cgi.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/GA/00014.html
This one finally supports your position, but even the adverse effects it lists aren't that bad: Increased risk of heart attack, Heightened risk of chronic cough and respiratory infections, and Potential for hallucinations and withdrawal symptoms. Notice, it says increased, but doesn't actually give values for how much more likely, indicating that the increase isn't that high. Also, this is one source, the first two basically said marijuana had no adverse effects.
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=GALE%7C00000000LVXO&documentId=GALE%7CPC3021900106&mode=view&userGroupName=p1841&jsid=078d40d7bbe0401ed25e9fe4ef60263f This again points to increased risks, but also lists benefits of marijuana. The article also helps to refute itself and the one above saying, "The Washington Post, stated that there was 'no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.'"
The lesson is, marijuana isn't that bad, but people capitalize on a few studies that say it is, despite all of the other information there is out there. Oh, and even the president agrees with me, when he said marijuana isn't as dangerous as alcohol: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/20/health/marijuana-versus-alcohol/
Oh, and here is article about 33 studies that found marijuana to be a safe and effective drug: http://www.mpp.org/states/washington/press-releases/33-us-clinical-studies-show.html
Lastly, when you think about the few adverse effects of marijuana, read the label on one of your prescription drugs and you will find that there are worse things on that bottle than are on the labels for cannabis.
Agrus, you Greek god you. You did what others could not. You provided links for the cause when everyone else was just to damn lazy. My hat's off to you good sir.
Why should you determine what people smoke?
I just see your argument against smoking it as the same thing as arguing against smoking cigs.
Quote from: Taysby on May 12, 2014, 10:51:59 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 12, 2014, 09:47:51 PM
Your Sources:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/marijuana/evidence/hrb-20059701
Gives marijuana a B and C on everything, which means helpful or we don't see an effect. Neither of which prove marijuana is dangerous, in fact does the opposite.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)00021-8/fulltext
Ok, this one says there is some correlation with mental disorders if smoked before 16, but says that even skeptics of medical marijuana don't argue that it is bad, only that it doesn't do much as a medicine.
http://www-cgi.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/GA/00014.html
This one finally supports your position, but even the adverse effects it lists aren't that bad: Increased risk of heart attack, Heightened risk of chronic cough and respiratory infections, and Potential for hallucinations and withdrawal symptoms. Notice, it says increased, but doesn't actually give values for how much more likely, indicating that the increase isn't that high. Also, this is one source, the first two basically said marijuana had no adverse effects.
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=GALE%7C00000000LVXO&documentId=GALE%7CPC3021900106&mode=view&userGroupName=p1841&jsid=078d40d7bbe0401ed25e9fe4ef60263f This again points to increased risks, but also lists benefits of marijuana. The article also helps to refute itself and the one above saying, "The Washington Post, stated that there was 'no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.'"
The lesson is, marijuana isn't that bad, but people capitalize on a few studies that say it is, despite all of the other information there is out there. Oh, and even the president agrees with me, when he said marijuana isn't as dangerous as alcohol: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/20/health/marijuana-versus-alcohol/
Oh, and here is article about 33 studies that found marijuana to be a safe and effective drug: http://www.mpp.org/states/washington/press-releases/33-us-clinical-studies-show.html
Lastly, when you think about the few adverse effects of marijuana, read the label on one of your prescription drugs and you will find that there are worse things on that bottle than are on the labels for cannabis.
There were assorted paragraphs that said that "it has more carcinogens" in all of them, and FINALLY people see that I recognize marajuana has medical benefits! I just don't want people to smoke it! And thanks for providing a link! You have done the impossible! I'll check it out soon. Thanks!
So taysby, should weed be legal?
Quote from: Taysby on May 13, 2014, 09:18:38 AM
Those were all taken from this thread. One might think I want it to be legalized.
I think we all know I'm too lazy to remember things taysby. I don't need your sass ;)
I would assume then that the past few pages of discussion than are simply all of us trying to explain that we all agree that pot should be legal. What we do with said legal pot is the argument, but that is out of our hands.
Legal pot is doing well in Colorado
Source: google pot Colorado tax
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 13, 2014, 11:47:47 AM
Legal pot is doing well in Colorado
Source: google pot Colorado tax
lol at source being google something. and any explanation on what "doing well" means? i live in colorado and support widespread legalization, but i still think this post was pretty silly.
Well did you google that?
I just did and it linked for articles stating large tax revenues of about $20 million for march
Another article I've read recently stated crime hasn't grown even though it was predicted it would happen.
I would say that is doing well
Quote from: Taysby on May 13, 2014, 11:40:38 PM
There has been a dramatic increase in fires and explosions. Why? People are trying to make hash which requires a lot of petroleum products and flames. So the marajuana indirectly has injured/killed multiple people.
That's a silly argument. Ferbreeze has indirectly hurt people too. Have you every sprayed that stuff in the air then walk through it? It's like acid in the eyes!
They should have gotten a bhogart
BHOgart.com
Quote from: Taysby on May 13, 2014, 11:40:38 PM
There has been a dramatic increase in fires and explosions. Why? People are trying to make hash which requires a lot of petroleum products and flames. So the marajuana indirectly has injured/killed multiple people.
There is no such thing as indirect harm, using this logic we can blame God for setting the rules wrong :p
Um
People make all forms of hash regardless of the legality of marijuana.
To state that the legality causes more people to jump on the bandwagon is speculation. Not truth.
In many articles I've read re: CO and legalization state how the "trafficking" frenzy to neighboring states hasn't really happened.
That was the fear mongers' first strategy: legal marihuana will result in more crime.
Guess what it really hasn't.
That's purely coincidental as BHO tech has grown as a new way to extract THC in the last few years.
Water extraction etc has been around for a long time
Not every truth can be cited on the Internet.
Quote from: ShadowBarbarian on May 14, 2014, 11:20:55 PM
Quote from: Taysby on May 14, 2014, 10:42:09 PM
I would love to be educated on the non dangerous ways (just a general summery, nothing major)
I don't know how Piotr feels about a public How To and links to said guides posted on his forum, but a quick Google search will tell you all you need to know.
His internet is protected because his parents are protective..
Quote from: Taysby on May 14, 2014, 11:34:44 PM
Not having an internet browser is different from filtered internet. It's so stupid! I'm 18 in like 20 days!
You're 6 days older than me lol.
So taysby if you're for legalizing, why are you debating with us the harmfulness of smoking MJ?
Because he has a lot of point. Marijuana is not proven to be harmful when smoking, because it most probably prevents from cancer. However burning plants creates a lot of carcinogens and poisons in general. Negative effect of burning the plant cancels positive effect when you are smoking it, is what Taysby and his sources are saying.
Quote from: Taysby on May 15, 2014, 05:00:18 PM
What I'm saying, is it should be available for use, however smoking it is not advised.
That makes no sense....that's like saying we are going to sell cars, but we don't want you to drive it. When the government decides if a drug will be legal or illegal, they don't say, "well, in that plastic bag, its totally safe." You judge a drug based on its affects when used as it is meant to be used.
Quote from: Taysby on May 15, 2014, 05:44:50 PM
The correct analogy would be selling a car and saying don't drive it off of a cliff because that is hazardous to your health.
There are many un harmful ways to use marajuana.
There are other things you can do with a car besides drive it, but 95% of the time, you are going to drive it. Same goes for marijuana, the grand majority of those who buy it, smoke it.
Quote from: Taysby on May 15, 2014, 08:22:30 PM
But you get my pout. There's safe ways to use it. Smoking it isn't safe, bt hey, if you want to do it and screw the consequences I don't care.
Apparently you do...
Quote from: Taysby on May 15, 2014, 08:56:47 PM
I'm only arguinggn because people claim smoking it is safe. That's the only reason. If people want to do it, I don't care. But I do care if they think it's safe and it's not.
Nothing is safe. Water can easily kill you, as can air, safe is a relative term. When people say marijuana is "safe" they mean when you compare it to other illegal drugs and even many legal ones, it is less dangerous to your health.
Quote from: Taysby on May 15, 2014, 10:14:16 PM
Correct, but smoking it isn't "good" for your health.
No one pretends it is. It is just stupid that it is illegal and put next to things like crack, while alcohol and tobacco are legal.
Volcanos are great 😎🌋☁☁☁
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 16, 2014, 12:30:28 AM
Volcanos are great 😎🌋☁☁☁
Still haven't used one... What's it like?
Quote from: Spencer Addington on May 16, 2014, 01:18:18 AM
Quote from: PapaBudz on May 16, 2014, 01:16:52 AM
Quote from: Spencer Addington on May 16, 2014, 01:16:16 AM
Quote from: PapaBudz on May 16, 2014, 01:11:18 AM
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 16, 2014, 12:30:28 AM
Volcanos are great 😎🌋☁☁☁
Still haven't used one... What's it like?
What is this?
It's a vaporizer.
As specific brand or just a general name for a vaporizer?
It's a specific brand that's top of the line.
Check it out (https://volcanovaporizer.com/)
Quote from: PapaBudz on May 16, 2014, 01:22:16 AM
Quote from: Spencer Addington on May 16, 2014, 01:18:18 AM
Quote from: PapaBudz on May 16, 2014, 01:16:52 AM
Quote from: Spencer Addington on May 16, 2014, 01:16:16 AM
Quote from: PapaBudz on May 16, 2014, 01:11:18 AM
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 16, 2014, 12:30:28 AM
Volcanos are great 😎🌋☁☁☁
Still haven't used one... What's it like?
What is this?
It's a vaporizer.
As specific brand or just a general name for a vaporizer?
It's a specific brand that's top of the line.
Check it out (https://volcanovaporizer.com/)
Ooooooh. So pretty.
Gets me more Chinese than a new born baby in china
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 16, 2014, 12:30:28 AM
Volcanos are great 😎🌋☁☁☁
Perhaps, but DBV is better ;)
Piotr: we'll have to debate this IRL one day :)
dBv is very similar to the silver surfer (which is great!)
I just like that big bag for sharing :)
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 17, 2014, 01:21:07 PM
Piotr: we'll have to debate this IRL one day :)
dBv is very similar to the silver surfer (which is great!)
I just like that big bag for sharing :)
Sharing :))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2TO5atI4rU
i love this. just thought id put it here, to lighten up the discussion a little.
enjoy.
(and its even better on 2x speed)
http://m.policymic.com/articles/87875/here-s-the-real-story-behind-that-marijuana-changes-your-brain-study
A study announced recently that MJ changes your brain!
Then the scientist spoke out and said, "hey media is spinning my research"
Article link above.
I'd just like to point this out as it shows how media uses small nuances to spin stories in a conservative/liberal manner. The scientist even says it herself. She's not a conservative, just wants everyone to know the effects.
The media spins everything. They just can't let the truth be itself.
In other news I just acquired a 🌋 and had an amazing pizza last night
FTA: "The reality, for even pro-legalization people like myself, is that there's a dearth of research on the effects of marijuana — a psychoactive substance that many states are considering legalizing. It'd be illogical to think that a psychoactive substance that gets you high doesn't affect the brain. By definition, it does and we should be honest about that."
Neuroplasticity is a fact and it is far stronger than many believe. There is a case of girl who survived amputation oh half of her brain, for example, and learned to walk again. Our IQ and talents constantly change ;)