venomai

I don't see the problem with pre-rolled joints containing 'chemical' additives. We have regulations against using dangerous/addicting substances (such as nicotine) as additives. Marijuana, if legalized, would be placed under the same regulations as any other food/drug. Of course, full legalization is unlikely at this point. Decriminalization similar to the Netherlands' policies is much more likely (i.e. coffee shops, small-time businesses, etc).

Older games were less focused on looking realistic and pretty -- the result is that most of them had to be really fun to do well. A few more games to add... Mario Party 2/3 - incredibly fun Banjo Kazooie Earthworm Jim Mario Kart 64

This sounds like an argument for the legalization and regulation of marijuana. As Zierro pointed out, marijuana is very rarely laced with other substances. When it does happen, it's usually done at the user-level. Also, keep in mind that many of these studies, particularly those studying pot's addiction potential and health effects, focus on the people who smoke it (i.e. those who are smoking potentially laced weed). The study does have a number of limitations. My intention was simply to show that "pot accidents" do happen, even if they are rare.

Huh? :lol: Are you kidding? The claims in both articles are supported by well-cited academic research. They are indeed factual and credible. Are you trolling? Or do you actually believe this crap? Pointless? :lol: Medicinal and even non-medicinal marijuana has already been decriminalized in a number of states. In the last couple of decades alone, support for marijuana decriminalization has grown rapidly among the American public. By the way, I am not a "stoner." I smoke weed because I enjoy it, not because I am a seeking the short-lived "thrill" of rebelling against authority (or, as it seems to be in your case, my parents). Besides, where I live in Canada, cops tend not give a damn when they see somebody smoking a joint. Hell, we even have a number of "pot coffee-shops" in our major cities, some of them even supply vaporizers and/or pot to patrons. I suggest you read some of those replies again... I don't really care to pick through each of your claims. Most of them are not supported by any amount of credible research. I strongly suggest you take your "drug education" class with a grain of salt.

Do you think this might be dependent on the individuals? I play instruments better after smoking and that takes a lot of coordination. Not to say I don't trip once in a while, but I do that even while sober. :lol: It could be. But, more likely, it is dependent on other factors, such as your immediate environment, the dosage, etc. For example, after a high dose of cannabis, a misperception of one's balance/environment, rather than diminished coordination, may lead to an accident. Also, I'm curious, have you actually seen yourself play while high? I've had similar feelings when programming. Although I've had a number of programming-related breakthroughs after smoking up, I generally end up having to re-write the code the next day, asking myself questions like "What the hell was I thinking there?" I've heard people claim of being a "better driver while drunk," but this means nothing in the face of scientific research. It's the incredibly idiotic and willfully ingnorant pot-lovers like yourself that are counterproductive to the movement that the rest of us are lobbying for (law reform, social acceptance, etc). Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific And Rational Review [hide=]In closed course and driving simulator studies, marijuanas acute effects on psychomotor performance include minor impairments in tracking (eye movement control) and reaction time, as well as variation in lateral positioning, headway (drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to follow less closely to the vehicle in front of them), and speed (drivers tend to decrease speed following cannabis inhalation).16 [...] A handful of more recent studies have noted a positive association between very recent cannabis exposure and a gradually increased risk of vehicle accident. Typically, these studies reveal that drivers who possess THC/blood concentrations above 5ng/ml implying cannabis inhalation within the past 1-3 hours25-26 experience an elevated risk of accident compared to drug-free controls.27-28 [...] The above review illustrates the need for further education and understanding regarding the effects of cannabis upon driving behavior. While pots adverse impact on psychomotor skills is less severe than the effects of alcohol, driving under the acute influence of cannabis still may pose an elevated risk of accident in certain situations. However, because marijuanas psychomotor impairment is subtle and short-lived, consumers can greatly reduce this risk by refraining from driving for a period of several hours following their cannabis use.[/hide] Impacts of cannabis on driving - Mann et al. (2003) [hide=]Several comprehensive reviews of this literature have appeared, and the results appear to be very consistent. A consistent conclusion is that the acute effects of a moderate or higher dose of cannabis impairs the skills related to safe driving and injury risk. Moskowitz (1985) concluded that marijuana use impairs driver performance under a variety of experimental conditions. Berghaus and Guo (1995) conducted a meta-analysis of 60 studies and concluded that marijuana causes impairment of every performance area connected with safe driving of a vehicle, such as tracking, psychomotor skills, reaction time, visual functions, and attention. Of these performance criteria, the most deterioration from marijuana use was found for measures of attention (e.g., the Continuous Performance Task), tracking (e.g., the Pursuit Rotor task) and psychomotor skills (e.g., simple reaction time)(Berghaus and Guo, 1995; Coambs and McAndrews, 1994). Similar conclusions have been reached by other reviewers (Ashton, 2001; Hollister, 1998; OKane et al., 2002; Maes et al., 1999; Smiley, 1999). [...] Johns (2001) notes that cannabis use can occasionally result in short-term psychiatric distress and even psychotic states, and that cannabis may provoke relapse and aggravate existing symptoms in people with major mental illnesses such as schizophrenia.[/hide] It's already been discussed (with sources) in this thread or another that high-dose cannabis use can trigger and/or exacerbate symptoms of psychosis and depression in vulnerable individuals, i.e. it can precipitate a mental illness that may not have otherwise surfaced. This isn't necessarily "that person's fault" as it need not relate to self-control, abuse, etc.

Marijuana is a psychoactive drug. There's no denying that. It's one thing to reject rubbish government propaganda, but there's no need to skew the truth. It's not uncommon to hear of "stoned accidents" (I've had a couple myself) and, less commonly, pot-related fatalities. e.g. "Marijuana use prior to injury was determined prospectively in 1023 patients injured as the result of vehicular (67.6%) and nonvehicular (32.4%) trauma. Most were men (72.8%); most were 30 years of age or younger (58.4%). All were admitted directly from the scene of injury. [Marijuana] was detected in 34.7% of subjects." [1] Marijuana alone (without alcohol) was detected in 18.3% patients. Its likely that a significant number of these accidents could have been avoided had the individual not smoked beforehand.

Have you ever drank a considerable amount of alcohol in one setting? There is a growing amount of evidence to suggest that heavy cannabis use can have a significant and lasting impact on short-term memory function, even after abstinence from the drug. [hide=]In a more detailed recent case-control, study Varma et al (1988) tested a range of memory functions in 26 long term heavy cannabis users following 12 weeks of abstinence. Using a locally developed and validated test battery which assessed memory in 10 different domains, they found a selective and significant impairment in short-term memory, in addition to poor performance on a pencil-tapping test of perceptuo-motor function. Although a case-control study of 41 cannabis dependent Costa-Rican men showed a consistent but non-significant impairment on several tests of learning and memory (Satz et al, 1976), an 11 year follow-up of 27 of the original sample using a more sensitive test battery found significant impairment of short-term memory following 24 hours abstinence on the selective reminding test of Bushke, and a reduced capacity for sustained attention using the continuous performance test of Buschbaum (Page et al, 1988). Strong evidence for a persisting selective impairment of short-term memory following a period of abstinence has recently emerged from an important study of 10 cannabis-dependent North American middle-class adolescents' participants of a community drug treatment programme (Schwarz et al, 1989) [...] tests were administered and repeated following six weeks of abstinence [...] At the outset the performance of the cannabis-dependent group was significantly poorer compared to either control group on the Benton visual retention test and the Wechsler memory scale prose passages. Although the degree of impairment improved with abstinence, cannabis-dependent subjects still had a detectable and significant deficit compared to the control groups after six weeks.[/hide] Source: Cannabis and Memory Loss - Deahl, 2006

What a load of crap. :lol: Especially the last claim... Average potency of marijuana in 2009 is 9.6% THC[1], a rise from 4%. This is still relatively low when compared to an average of 15-18% THC in the Netherlands' coffee shops.[2, p.176] Potency is irrelevant, though, since users generally adjust their dose based on the potency of the bud. This is a weak argument. Many things are "bad for you," from a poor diet (i.e. McDonalds) to a lack of exercise, yet none of these things are illegal or seen as 'taboos' simply because they are bad for you. As per your request, though, there is a growing amount of evidence to suggest potential health benefits from moderate use of pot. Further research is necessary to be sure, of course. A rather biased NORML article highlights some of this research, citing a number of credible papers to support its claims.

People can trigger/exacerbate their underlying mental illness from a variety substances, be it antidepressants or alcohol. The fact that a substance -- or for that matter even a state of mind (stress, fatigue) -- can trigger/exacerbate an underlying mental illness among a minority of people does mean we ought to approach it with caution, and perhaps even avoid it when we suspect we may be at higher risk. It does not, however, mean we ought to view it as a taboo that must be prohibited/discouraged among the general population. There are many. Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review People ignore the evidence on both sides of the debate. This is nothing new.

The vast majority of patients will not react negatively to low doses of the drug. This is true for most medicines on the market today. It is unrealistic to imagine a single medicine as the ideal treatment for every patient. In many cases, medical marijuana can replace the potentially more dangerous opiates and antidepressants. Of course, that is not to say that cannabis will become some sort of end-all treatment. Although more research is necessary to determine exactly who is at risk -- and to better understand drug's mechanism of action -- cannabis has long been recognized as a "legitimate medicine" in America.[1]

Do some research. There are many arguments for cannabis as a legitimate medicine. [hide=2002 Review of Literature]HIERARCHY OF THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS To do justice to the scientific evidence with regard to different indications, a hierarchy of therapeutic effects can be devised. In this overview no distinction will be made between isolated THC (dronabinol) and natural cannabis products. Indications for THC will be regarded as indications for cannabis and vice versa. 1. Established effect: Nausea and vomiting, anorexia, and weight loss. 2. Relatively well-confirmed effect: spasticity, painful conditions, especially neurogenic pain, movement disorders, asthma, glaucoma. 3. Less confirmed effect: allergies, inflammation, infection, epilepsy, depression, bipolar disorders, anxiety disorder, dependency and withdrawal. 4. Basic research stage: autoimmune disease, cancer, neuroprotection, fever, disorders of blood pressure.[/hide] Source: http://www.medboardwatch.com/wb/pages/t ... ffects.php More recent literature: Alzheimer's Disease Multiple Sclerosis Tourette's Syndrome Brain Tumours Further reading: http://www.norml.org//index.cfm?Group_ID=7002 http://www.canorml.org/prop/MMJIndications.htm In what way? As you noted, many people who have psychosis self-medicate with cannabis. This does not necessarily mean that cannabis must have been the sole or primary cause of their psychosis, however. Generally, psychosis is due to a collection of factors rather than a single one. Stress, family problems, lack of sleep, caffeine and other drug use, etc. can all exacerbate psychosis. Many people, perhaps had they been better educated, would have preferred not to, say, abuse caffeine -- or alcohol -- had they known it would later trigger psychosis. This is true for any activity that poses a significant risk to the individual's life, whether it be drug use or extreme sports. Furthermore, simply because a drug is "more available" does not mean that its use will increase, as my earlier source points out. In fact, rates of use often decline after the decriminalization/legalization of cannabis. If cannabis does indeed increase the rate of psychosis significantly, then decriminalization/legalization very well may help curb this.

a) You assume that decriminalization/legalization will lead to an increase in marijuana use. B) You assume that an increase in marijuana use will lead to an increase in rates of schizophrenia. Neither assumption is supported by current research. Marijuana Decriminalization & Its Impact on Use "Findings from dozens of government-commissioned and academic studies published over the past 25 years overwhelmingly affirm that liberalizing marijuana penalties does not lead to an increase in marijuana consumption or affect adolescent attitudes toward drug use. [...]" Cannabis May Pose A "Modest" Risk For Those Vulnerable To Schizophrenia, Report Says "The review, 'Cannabis and Mental Health: Responses to the Emerging Evidence,' finds that cannabis, like alcohol, may 'precipitate schizophrenia in people who are already vulnerable for individual or family reasons.' Authors add, however, that the 'increased rates of cannabis use in the last thirty years have not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the rate of psychosis in the population.'"

And who created the creator? :lol: "God's creation was unique" or "turtles all the way down," perhaps? With a slice of Occam's razor, we can just as easily apply these characteristics to the universe itself. (For the latter, see the Cyclic Model.) God is defined relative to culture. Many cultures worship something other than a sentient being.

My life is only dull when I'm doing something I do not enjoy. Which, fortunately, is not very often... This is exactly how I feel about programming and game development. :thumbup:

Here are the sources I have used in past debates, and the material I've quoted. [hide=]"A large number of studies show that a majority of child molesters are not preferentially attracted to prepubescent children or adolescents, and therefore are not pedophiles or ephebophiles.3 Many engage in sex with children because of situational factors such as marital problems, alcoholism, or unavailability of adults.4" [1] "The distinction between pedophiles and sex offenders is crucial since most studies (the authors list 14 of them) find that only a small portion of convicted sex offenders against minors are actually preferentially attracted to children [ie. pedophiles]." [2] "The general public and professionals likely overestimate the degree of aggressiveness in sexual offenses involving children; the media gives the most attention to violent cases, and criminal and clinical researchers see a biased population with significantly higher levels of aggression. ... The available evidence suggests that in reality, aggressive behavior is rare in pedophilic incidents." [3] "It can be hypothesized, based on empirical findings within the two domains, that the self-fulfilling prophecy phenomenon and/or the influence of negative expectations and biases may possibly be contributing to the negative symptoms cited in the clinical CSA literature. The sexual abuse label may increase the potential for negative outcomes by triggering various mechanisms of influence that may maintain or exacerbate negative symptomatology manifested by sexually abused children." [4] "Results of the present review [suggest that] CSA does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender in the college population. The finding that college samples closely parallel national samples with regard to prevalence of CSA, types of experiences, self-perceived effects, and CSA-symptom relations strengthens the conclusion that CSA is not a propertied phenomenon and supports Constantine's (1981) conclusion that CSA has no inbuilt or inevitable outcome or set of emotional reactions." (emphasis added; CSA = child sexual abuse) [5] (For mainly political reasons, the Rind study was heavily criticized and rejected. See here for more details. Also; note the word pervasive in their conclusion!) "a large proportion of [child sex] offenders fabricate childhood sexual abuse as an excuse or form of exoneration for their behavior" [6] Further reading The more recent recognitions of zoosexuality as a possible sexual orientation serves as a good analogy.[/hide]

Credible and objective research seems to suggest that: - Pedophilia (medically defined as the preferential attraction to prepubescent children) is a sexual orientation; i.e. not a simple "choice" of the individual, and it is highly unlikely that past child abuse causes pedophilia in later years - Child abuse is not pervasively harmful to children - Most convicted child abusers are not preferentially attracted to prepubescent children, i.e. are not pedophiles by medical definition (e.g. "situational" sexual behaviour). Research suggests that aggressiveness/violence is rare among pedophiles (as it would be rare among any other group, i.e. homosexuals) - The mere label of "the sexually abused child" and the stigma attached to it can potentially exacerbate the problems of child abuse etc... I can dig up some sources if you want.

An online debate is not about who "wins" or "loses." As I'm sure you are well aware, these debates are never declared finished. An online debate is an exchange of knowledge and perspective motivated by truth rather than skill or victory. If a 12 year old only needs to cite an article to dismantle your argument, I would question its validity. :lol:

I disagree. My personal ideals remain the same regardless of my anonymity. What changes is my loyalty to these ideals, so to speak. I have a reputation and image to uphold in public life, and so I conform to what is expected and avoid being associated with any serious "taboos" or social stigmas. Take, for example, a debate surrounding "responsible" hard drug use, or a debate about whether we ought to support (indoor) prostitutes, i.e. view it as a legitimate and respectable career. An even better example is pedophilia. Hell, it's hard to have an honest discussion about pedophilia online without being associated with child rapists and psychotic child abusers. If you aren't taking the side of "Kill/Arrest all pedophiles," then you are often associated with them. I wouldn't dare express my personal ideals of hard drug use, prostitution, pedophilia etc. in public, even though I have a great amount of reason to support them. This is the beauty of an online debate: it gives you time to think about your own perspective. The most influential changes in my beliefs come from taking the time to mull them over (often in response to something I see/hear/discover/etc). I find that rapid-fire verbal debates all too often devolve into a mere defense of your own fixed beliefs, rather than an attempt to analyze and discuss the different perspectives. Just my two cents.

Lateralus: wouldn't it be much cheaper to roll your own cigarettes? I enjoy debating, but I prefer doing it anonymously. The amount of social stigma associated with these topics generally deters me from discussing them in public.

PC, it will be a 3D Flash game.

I agree that it's highly unlikely that this bill will get attention, let alone get passed. Interesting that these bills are finally being proposed, though.

Recent news... Assemblyman Introduces Measure To Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol

Right now I'm in the process of developing a 'rubber duck racer' game. It will be similar to the high-paced and "underground" style of Need for Speed or Midnight Club, but with a clear undertone of humour. :)

Day of the Tentacle King's Quest V GoldenEye 007 Perfect Dark Zelda series GTA II Worms Armageddon Roller Coaster Tycoon Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines World of Warcraft

You can never legally copy, remix and redistribute any material that you do not own the rights to, even if you give credit (unless permission is given). This is not a new policy introduced by YouTube -- it's at the core of United States copyright laws. YouTube doesn't care what the content of the video is, or what kind of credit is given. All they know is that it is an infringement of copyright laws and a violation of their ToS, and thus it should be deleted. Keep in mind that, while many videos are well intended, some may be seen as detrimental to the original makers (e.g. defamation, more interest in the remix, etc).