Soft Drugs: What gives?

[Death_By_Pod]

I read something today and thought of this thread, enjoy.

 

 

 

In 1974, Szasz, writing about drug policy, asked:

 

 

 

Why is it that:

 

A man who sells alcohol is a retail merchant

 

A man who sells drugs is a pusher?

 

An alcoholic with DT's ends up in a hospital

 

A drug user who hallucinates ends up in a jail?

 

 

 

(Szasz 1974, p. 131, 1st edn)

 

 

 

I'm surprised you quoted Szasz of all people as he is a well known anti-psychiatrist (and he makes some valid critiques).

 

 

 

He takes a fairly libertarian way of thinking and doesn't take into account the hard/soft drug distinction. Why shouldn't people be allowed more addictive and harmful drugs such as heroin, a proposition which is commonly rejected throughout this thread.

[Snooooopy]

To the Author of this Topic.... Thanks

 

I was about to start a topic like this a couple of days ago but I got busy at work...

 

 

 

As a daily pot smoker of course it should be legalized, I've been smoking for roughly 8 years now started when i was 14 im 22 now, I work for a coorporation of apt communities im a site manager, hence i need to deal with alot of peoples checks, accounting,and I cannot mess up or it creates a whole lot of problems that I gotta fix later, needless to say my memory is good, im good at math, my brain works just fine, i may have alot more blonde moments when i smoke but sober im alright lol. Its only in the states where its illigal alot of other countries are being more open to the subject, thats why im taking a cruise to amasterdam for 2 weeks \ but im not smoking their cannabis :^o

 

 

 

Ive tried shrooms its natural better than doing acid or ecstacy harder drugs u know..

 

 

 

Nice man! 8 years of pot smoking= present. Cointuine the good work! Aim for 30!

 

 

 

not like i was bragging about it just stating ive been smoking alot to be honest i'll probably smoke maryjane till i cant no more, my drug of choice and mines alone anybody who does or doesnt or take hard drugs or drink its their choices... i like pot :-w

[darkmage099]

Breakdown of this thread (my point of view)

 

 

 

Arguments made by pro-legalization:

 

-less "harmful" than tobacco, alcohol etc Then the question is not whether pot should be legalized, it is should we make tobacco and alcohol illegal. however, this would never happen because of the tobacco industries that are already in place.

 

-not addictive

 

-not AS harmful While they may not be as harmful as other substances, they still are harmful. They can have very negative effects on certain individuals.

 

-Black market will be nullified False, there are still hard drugs

 

-ensure pure marijuana That may be so but it is still marijuana

 

-hospital benefits We have other things...

 

-real life examples of how the poster smokes pot and is unaffected (cannot be proven true or not) Depends on the user

 

-never killed anyone It can have negative effects on lives which ruin them.

 

-other countries have done it and are unaffected America is not any other country. We have our own needs, ideology, and way of life that may differ from other countries.

 

 

 

Arguments for anti-legalization:

 

-it is still harmful regardless of how it compares to tobacco or alcohol[/b]

 

-Soft or not drugs are BAD Well tobacco and alcohol are bad why is it legal?

 

-drugs relates to crime so does tobacco and alcohol

 

-counters for pro-legalization

[Kill_Thomas9]

i stopped reading at

 

 

 

LSD, psilocybin and cannabis (among others) are far less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes

 

 

 

just because they are less harmful doesnt mean they arent harmful. thats like saying i'll have less of a chance of dieing a i poke an unexploded bomb with a stick then if i poke 2...

 

 

 

DRUGS are still DRUGS soft or not

 

 

 

No... It's like the difference betwen a gun and a bat...

[Led-Zeppelin]

[hide]

Marijuana has never killed anyone.

 

 

 

Never heard of drug related homicides then? Gangs have fought, maimed and killed for 'control' of the streets where this stuff gets peddled.

 

 

 

That is killing people indirectly. Not the drug itself, I think you would find the problem behind the gang fights is greed and ego, not marajuana. :roll:

 

 

 

We're saying no one has ever OD'd on the stuff.

 

 

 

I know what the poster was driving at, I'm saying theres more to this than someone 'firing up the challis'.

 

 

 

Just because you feel no one has died in its consumption doesn't make everything 'hunky-dory'.

 

[/hide]

 

An avoidable death ....

 

Perhaps we should ban wood and other such materials, so there would be no more house fires? So what, he had alot of Marajuana plants and chemecals in the basement? I have house plants and flammable liquids in my flat, oh teh noes?

 

 

 

Still think drugs are fun and safe ?

 

Comment on the site;

 

It has been mentioned in other articles about this story that Malcolm Flockton was clinically obese and had high blood pressure. This, combined with a stressful situation, a confrontation and a struggle with the police, seems more likely to cause a fatal heart attack or similar, rather than a drug with no overdose history.

 

 

 

If Malcolm Flockton had consumed 9 cups of coffee before the incident, would we blame the Caffeine for his untimely death?

 

 

 

Misinformation tells us that Cannabis is assosiciated with violent behaviour and possible death. Perhaps it's time the country became much more informed on this subject.

 

 

 

- Kay Kintzing, Essex

 

 

 

Still not convinced?

 

I won't comment on this as I dont know enough about mental illnesses and such, but as some people here have mentioned, it may bring out an underlying problem, which may of shown itself later on, anyway.

 

 

 

[hide]

 

At the end of the day there's going to be people that are so ingrained in there ways, (addicted?) choosing to do whatever. Fine, really I have no problem with that, go turn your brains to mush doing whatever substance(s).

 

 

 

But if your going to choose that kind of lifestyle, get used to associating with people for whom law-breaking is a career, doing time or paying fines isn't a deterrent. Like I've said in a previous post, substance ab(use) isn't glamorous whether it be a rampaging group of pissed up youths causing trouble for a neighbourhood or some junkie stealing whatever to get their next hit.

 

 

 

The facts remain that substance abuse/use, violent crime, death and mental health issues are inextricably linked. The suggestion that the legalisation of cannabis, etc would somehow remove these issues is short-sighted at best and recklessly dangerous at worse.

 

 

 

I'm just wondering if anyone can move past the 'bad alcohol - legalise pot' argument....[/hide]

 

 

 

I find it funny that, whilst you bring up the fact people die in gang wars, to prove that people do die from it, that is a huge point in favour of pro-legalisation. People would have no need to fight over it anymore then a cup of coffee. Families would not fall apart at the seams because of it.

 

 

 

One thing that worries me though, in counties where it is legalised, do you have some sort of marajuana breathaliser? Simalar to an alcahol one?

 

 

 

Someway to test if a person that is driving is all straight and sober?

[Nom]

I find it funny that, whilst you bring up the fact people die in gang wars, to prove that people do die from it, that is a huge point in favour of pro-legalisation.

 

 

 

QFT

 

 

 

I'm not going to get into another big debate with someone else as I already have one on my hands, but take a look at some of the arguments on both sides of it if you want a good idea of the main points.

 

 

 

Edit: Stupid wording :XD:

[meb]

I am a supporter of legalising soft drugs like they did with alcohol. Alcohol may not have a big effect in small amounts, but you can ruin your (and the lifes of those around you) if you get addicted. I have not seen anything that can be compared to that with the illegal soft drugs. Of course it all comes down to responsible use. If I smoke 5 joints with some friends and then go drive a car, then yes, soft drugs are bad. But if you have 3 beers and drive a car, things can go bad too. And you will reach those 3 beers much faster without thinking than you will smoke all those joints.

 

 

 

DRUGS are still DRUGS soft or not

 

 

 

Smoke 1 joint. The day after that, buy some heroine and inject it. Compare the effect.

 

 

 

To the people who bring up news articles about people that died dodgy deaths where drugs were involved: Check how many car accidents are caused by drunk drivers. Or how many family dramas that invovle an alcohol-adicted parent.

 

 

 

Never heard of drug related homicides then? Gangs have fought, maimed and killed for 'control' of the streets where this stuff gets peddled.

 

 

 

Would they fight over a legalised drug? No they won't.

 

 

 

I'm just wondering if anyone can move past the 'bad alcohol - legalise pot' argument....

 

 

 

Alcohol has proven that it has nasty concequences (sp?) again and again. That is why it is used as an example. I also only have experience with pot and magic mushrooms of the illegal soft drugs.

 

 

 

I all comes down to two things: Responsible use. If used responsibly, most drugs are harmless.

 

The other things are culture. We have drunk beer for thousands of years, but the other products weren't very common until much more recent. Drunkenness is a much more socially accepted phenomenon than being on an LSD trip.

[madcap_laughs]

Ok, I'll just lay it down

 

 

 

1. LSD flash backs don't just randomly occur. Every flash back I've had was when I was doing drugs. And it was just like a little segment of a normal trip. The main argument against LSD is that it can lead to schizophrenia ,which I must agree upon. I spent 94 days in a rehab clinic because I was going schizophrenic and was addicted to the wrong kinds of drugs (not these soft ones that are being discussed). That was when I was 16. Now I'm 21, an avid tripper and a frequent marijuana user and my life has never been better

 

 

 

2. Marijuana isn't addicting, unless you're an idiot and in that case you shouldn't be using it. Marijuana isn't physically addicting, meaning that there are no addictive properties in it (such as tobacco and nicotine). This makes it very difficult to get addicted to the drug itself. However, it can be mentally addicting. This means that you aren't addicted to the drug, but rather the experience.

[Lateralus]

DMT, Psilocybin, and to a lesser extent LSD, are all good tools for lifting your brain out of it's cognitive Kansas. Tearing the walls off reality and letting your brain fly is an unbelievable experience. That said, I don't advocate it in the slightest, all I'm saying is that it's interesting and it can change your view of the world.

 

 

 

Marijuana is just a good relaxation tool.

[Kill_Thomas9]

Alchohol:

 

Negetive effects: Very easy to die from OD. Causes people to act irrationally. Addictive drug.

 

 

 

Positive effects: Makes you feel good while using it(?) (sometimes??)

 

 

 

 

 

Hash

 

Negetive effects: Can damage lungs

 

 

 

Positive effects: Makes you feel great. Heightened awareness. Different understanding of the world. Very very very hard to OD on. Not addictive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I did a very bad job of this. But I tried to outline the fact that there is no reason to have alcohol legal, but not weed.

[BlueTear]

Exactly, THC is the active substance. It causes the highs that users experience. And we can state with reasonable certainty that it is causing the drop in intelligence that you are talking about, so less of it would be a good thing and make marijuana less harmful on the whole. And I stand by my argument on the reduction of drug dealers. If marijuana, the most abused illegal drug, is no longer illegal and profitable for them to sell, then they just lost a good portion of their business. And as I said before, users will be less likely to go to them when they have a legal soft drug that they can use.

You reduce the THC levels, you make the high less "high". The entire point is getting THC into your system. I don't follow how legalizing it, and then imposing regulations that would make it less of an attractive intoxicant if aquired legally, would actually make it more attractive to anyone but the people who are so caught up in how cool they are holding a joint the actual high is more of a side-effect. In short; You'd end up with a black market for "better" marijuana.

 

 

 

And legalized drugs do not reduce the use of heavier drugs - as I've said, alcohol is a perfect example of this - and some studies even suggest it does the exact opposite.

 

 

 

I think you missed the point on that one: Using marijuana is a crime. People are therefore being punished for it, crowding jail space and backing up the legal system. If it wasn't a crime, they would not be arrested for it. And it should not be a crime, because pot is the least harmful of the drugs out there, we have established that.

I was still adressing your originial point 2. from back on page 4, where you argued that high prices of marijuana lead to other crimes to raise money to buy it. As I said after that sentence though; Yes, if you make something that was illegal legal and you will get charge less people with. The same argument applies to all kinds of crime though, and I question whether that should, at any point, be considered an argument in favour of legalizing anything. (Though of course, it could be counted as a positive side-effect)

 

 

 

And as for the government turning a profit, think of all the societal problems right now. The revenue from legal sales of marijuana can be put to good use rectifying these problems. And as far as putting it before other aspects, it doesn't make a difference, really. Instead of kids being told that it's illegal to smoke pot (which only draws them to it more), they are told the same thing as about alcohol and cigarettes, both of which are more harmful to the users in both their physical and social health.

Care to offer some actual numbers supporting that idea? It sounds nice in theory, but that assumes that legalizing marijuana means there won't be an increase in "unresponsible use" with actual costs attached.

 

Less hazardous? No, I don't think so. Alcohol is quite possibly the worst. And they still do not belong grouped together. People choose to use heroin because it produces the desired effect and they know it. Most people don't choose to get drunk, they cannot control their body's craving for more once they've had too much. It's addictive in a different way than heroin. Heroin is more of a mental (though it does cause bodily dependence, of course) addiction, and people choose to start using because, as I said, they want what it can offer. No one looks at alcohol the same way as they do heroin.

No, they drink vodka because they enjoy the taste?

 

 

 

Alcohol is a drug. I know you agree on that. People consume alcohol - not because everyone who does it classifies as physiologically addicted - because they want the buzz, the "high". The chemical effect on your brain. The exact same reason why people go for heroin, the difference is that heroin is a heckuvalot stronger. But people still make an active choice to consume alcohol, and the people are beyond that well into alcoholism, still made an active choice to consume alcohol in the first place.

 

 

 

You don't consume intoxicants if you're not looking to get intoxicated. And - again - since alcohol is available as an intoxicant, and people still elect to use heavier stuff, we have a clear, practical example, of how legalizing any other soft drug will not affect heavy drug abuse in a positive way.

 

We already have morphine abuse as a problem. Why switch it out with heroin? It would just make the abuse way worse and more dangerous because, as you say, heroin is more potent. This isn't really relevant to marijuana, becuase marijuana has uses that cannot be replicated with larger doses of anything. I suggest we drop this as well.

As long as I'm sure you've gotten the point; The fact that any drug is beneficial because it can b used medically, is definitely not an argument that means it should be used recreationally. Which you suggested in page 4, point 6, unless I misread that (which, looking back on it, I might have)

See first point about THC. And' date=' since it seems that only the really heavy users suffered, and it is possible to recover, I can't see this as being an greater a problem than alcoholics, since they can quit and suffer no lasting damage, unlike alcoholics.[/quote']Hey, I never claimed alcohol was a peachy drug that should remain legalized for the good of society, I question whether any substance that has effects outside the safe confines of your home or whereever you chose to engage in "responsible drug use" is worth legalizing. And IIRC, the thing about marijuana is that it's stored in fat in the body, and when said fat is consumed it is released, which causes a flashback.

 

You've received testimony from actual posters who claim that they can easily put it down. What more can you need?

Scientific evidence that suggest these people aren't either 1) statistical anamolies 2) talking out of their [wagon] 3) unaware of their own, however slight, craving.

On a side note' date=' good debate. Glad to see we can actually have one without flames. (Ignoring some of the other people posting. . . :uhh: )[/quote']It's the quote tree's that scare people away... ;)

 

 

 

At this point I also feel it's worth noting that I didn't comment on this thread because of an undying conviction that Marijuana Is The Devil, but because I objected to arguments you, N0M_AN0R, posted on page 4. My personal stance is that as long as it doesn't harm others, or others end up paying for healthcare when it inevitably screws you over; do what you like. With flashbacks, effects outside of use etc, I'm not at all willing to say marijuana fits that description, and even less so about LSD due to the serious schizophrenia occurances, on top of flashbacks. But I also know that alcohol definitely doesn't.

 

 

 

(And, living in the tax-happy nation I do now, I'd probably have to argue against McDonalds. Or for tax cuts.)

[Nom]

You reduce the THC levels, you make the high less "high". The entire point is getting THC into your system. I don't follow how legalizing it, and then imposing regulations that would make it less of an attractive intoxicant if aquired legally, would actually make it more attractive to anyone but the people who are so caught up in how cool they are holding a joint the actual high is more of a side-effect. In short; You'd end up with a black market for "better" marijuana.

 

 

 

And legalized drugs do not reduce the use of heavier drugs - as I've said, alcohol is a perfect example of this - and some studies even suggest it does the exact opposite.

 

 

 

The thing is, the highs caused by THC are not equal to the physical effects. Yes, the high would be less, but any negative effects caused by too much of the substance would be far less. So it's not as if you're completely removing the high in order to nullify the physical effects. And for whatever small amount of the euphoria that users lost, would it really be worth it for them to go to a black market for "better" marijuana? That would be illegal, and it reverts to the argument that users would not choose an illegal drug over a legal one. Especially considering that marijuana is not addictive, they wouldn't be craving more of it.

 

 

 

Which leads me to that article you linked. They were talking about susceptibility to harder drugs after using soft ones. Since they weren't talking in the context of legalizing marijuana, they didn't address the fact that people using legal marijuana would not go to try a hard drug in the first place.

 

 

 

Some dub cannabis a ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅgatewayÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Kill_Thomas9]

You said that if you smoke marijuana, the effect is has on you depends on the setting and stuff. What would be considered a bad time to smoke?

 

 

 

By the way, this seems like an awesome topic to do a research report on.

[Led-Zeppelin]

You said that if you smoke marijuana, the effect is has on you depends on the setting and stuff. What would be considered a bad time to smoke?

 

 

 

By the way, this seems like an awesome topic to do a research report on.

 

 

 

Somewhere you are not familiar with, somewhere you are not comfortable to begin with, and with people you don't know. You never know how you will react the first time, so do it in a totally safe place where you are comfortable and relaxed.

[Quoi_Tu]

For all those anti-alcohol, a glass of wine every day or so has been proven to be good for you because of beneficial chemicals in it (which I am currently drawing a blank on). Also, many people drink beer and wine for the taste and how it may compliment a meal.

 

 

 

As for marijuana, I believe it should stay illegal because enough people misuse it already. The majority of people who smoke here are smarter and more responsible than the average drug-user, so their opinions may be slightly biased.

 

 

 

However, I do support the legalization of hemp, since it can't be abused and is a useful material to use.

[Kill_Thomas9]

For all those anti-alcohol, a glass of wine every day or so has been proven to be good for you because of beneficial chemicals in it (which I am currently drawing a blank on). Also, many people drink beer and wine for the taste and how it may compliment a meal.

 

 

 

As for marijuana, I believe it should stay illegal because enough people misuse it already. The majority of people who smoke here are smarter and more responsible than the average drug-user, so their opinions may be slightly biased.

 

 

 

However, I do support the legalization of hemp, since it can't be abused and is a useful material to use.

 

 

 

It does need to stay illegal. You cant have half the population walking around high all day.

[Tigra00]

For all those anti-alcohol, a glass of wine every day or so has been proven to be good for you because of beneficial chemicals in it (which I am currently drawing a blank on). Also, many people drink beer and wine for the taste and how it may compliment a meal.

 

 

 

As for marijuana, I believe it should stay illegal because enough people misuse it already. The majority of people who smoke here are smarter and more responsible than the average drug-user, so their opinions may be slightly biased.

 

 

 

However, I do support the legalization of hemp, since it can't be abused and is a useful material to use.

 

 

 

It does need to stay illegal. You cant have half the population walking around high all day.

 

 

 

...You mean like they do already?

 

 

 

If they legalized marijuana, they could tax it and effectively end the war on drugs as far as marijuana is concerned. They'd be saving money AND making it. Win/win, but they're apparently too [developmentally delayed]ed to realize that marijuana isn't really dangerous at all. There is a legal drug called Salvia Divinorum (currently trying to make it illegal, I think) that I'd say is more dangerous considering it completely screws with your mind I'm told...Marijuana is a pretty high-functioning drug. My uncle smokes marijuana ALL DAY, EVERYDAY, and you can never really even tell when he's high. He just laughs more easily if he is.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

...You mean like they do already?

 

 

 

If they legalized marijuana, they could tax it and effectively end the war on drugs as far as marijuana is concerned. They'd be saving money AND making it. Win/win, but they're apparently too [developmentally delayed] to realize that marijuana isn't really dangerous at all. There is a legal drug called [harmful plant] (currently trying to make it illegal, I think) that I'd say is more dangerous considering it completely screws with your mind I'm told...Marijuana is a pretty high-functioning drug. My uncle smokes marijuana ALL DAY, EVERYDAY, and you can never really even tell when he's high. He just laughs more easily if he is.

 

 

 

When you tax something like marijuana you will create a black market for tax free marijuana (like what already occurs for tobacco). You will still have gangs pushing it, the only thing you are doing is providing a more expensive legal alternative.

[BlueTear]

The thing is, the highs caused by THC are not equal to the physical effects. Yes, the high would be less, but any negative effects caused by too much of the substance would be far less. So it's not as if you're completely removing the high in order to nullify the physical effects. And for whatever small amount of the euphoria that users lost, would it really be worth it for them to go to a black market for "better" marijuana? That would be illegal, and it reverts to the argument that users would not choose an illegal drug over a legal one. Especially considering that marijuana is not addictive, they wouldn't be craving more of it.

Which, on basis of alcohol use and any heavier drug, I still say just isn't true. Illegal or legal, people still elect to use drugs. Legalization of softer drugs - ignoring the fact that I don't agree with the originial posters definition of softer drugs - will not draw users away from heavier drugs. Unless one of us can find some scientific evidence one way or the other, there's just not much point in taking that line of reasoning further, because all my arguments will be based on that same basic premise, and yours won't.

 

 

 

Mightily impressed you actually read the article properly enough to spot the bit about the drug dealers. Personally, I consider that BS, since IMHO people search out drug dealers to buy drugs, rather than drug dealers mysteriously convincing you how you just Have To Try This. You don't get addicted to heroin because you met a drug dealer, you get addicted to heroin because you made the choice to try it.

 

 

 

But in the case of marijuana, the softest of drugs, the drug around which a debate is raging on whether or not to legalize it, the drug which has had many good points in favor of it brought up on this very thread, and which by those points is deemed not to be a very great threat to society, I think the argument can be safely used here.

I'd like to add a caveat there and note that it's definitely not a greater threat than alcohol. That does not mean it's beneficiary, or even neutral. (And yes, I say that realizing that it counts as an argument in favour of legalizing).

 

 

 

The government can save 10 to 14 billion dollars by legalizing marijuana, as I said in my first post. An I assume what you mean by "irresponsible use" with costs is. . . wait, what do you mean by that? An eaxample would be helpful, because marijuana is hardly harmful enough to cause the sort of problems with irresponsible use of alcohol.

Like the use of any intoxicant you impair your judgement. This can lead to a wide aray of issues, everything from causing traffic accidents, neglecting what you're meant to be doing in favour of a high - whether this is caring for a baby or studying - and so on and so forth.

 

 

 

... isn't there a song that goes something like "Because I got high, because I got high..." and then he lists a bunch of things he missed?

 

 

 

Alcohol is not a soft drug. Your last statement implied as much. That being said, I can see where you are coming from, but it is sort of impractical to make a parallel with alcohol to serve that point. Marijuana is a different case than alcohol. For one thing, alcohol was legalized before the other drugs came into prominence, and therefore became socially accepted by the time the illegal drug market sprang up. So alcohol is in a different generation, if you will. Now the big problem is illegal drugs that we know now, just as alcohol was during prohibition. Legalizing marijuana would draw people away from the drug dealers who peddle in the harder stuff as well. They would flock to marijuana, just as they did to alcohol when it was re-legalized. The difference is that marijuana is far, far less harmful than alcohol, and there were no other drugs to draw people away from with alcohol.

 

 

 

So you see, it's a faulty parallel when trying to use it to oppose the legalization of a different substance in a different context. I will not deny that it holds weight, but this point (this whole debate, really, but this point especially) is purely hypothetical. We won't know until it is tried.

 

Fair enough. I'm not all that sure it's a something worth trying without serious research on what the effects are - because if it goes the wrong way, there's no room for 'oops', there'll be thousands of people with ruined lives.

 

 

 

That is pretty much what the entire pro-legalization side of the debate is about, providing arguments that overshadow small consequences. Not that I don't care about the users who experience such things, but alcohol has worse effects, far worse, yet we know the fiasco that prohibition was.

But the effects of alcohol are far easier to predict in relation to actual usage. Heck, one could even argue that "responible use" of alcohol is possible. But responsible use does not prevent a randomly occuring flashback, and that scares the [cabbage] out of me, as well as being my primary objection to legalizing marijuana.

[venomai]

Hey folks. I'm back from vacation.. :) Glad to see this topic has picked up some momentum.

 

 

 

In the news... Canada tokes at 4 times the wold average!

 

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/07/ ... ml?ref=rss

 

 

 

You said that if you smoke marijuana, the effect is has on you depends on the setting and stuff. What would be considered a bad time to smoke?

 

Set usually refers to mindset, preparation, expectations, etc. Setting refers to area, time of day, lighting, surrounding environment (noises, smells, etc).

 

 

 

You just need to find somewhere you're comfortable with. If you're "set" and you don't have any concerns before using drugs, you will have a better experience. In contrast, if you're uncomfortable or paranoid to begin with you may end up in a bad trip.

 

 

 

If you're having a bad time while intoxicated it's always a good idea to change the setting. This may be anything from changing the music or lighting to going outdoors.

 

 

 

Note: Most of set/setting stuff only concerns stronger hallucinogens like LSD or mushrooms.

 

 

 

By the way, this seems like an awesome topic to do a research report on.

 

Hah, thanks, but I don't think your professors would appreciate it. :lol:

 

 

 

Scientific evidence that suggest these people aren't either 1) statistical anamolies 2) talking out of their [wagon] 3) unaware of their own, however slight, craving.

 

I'm aware of my craving. But, that's all it is... a craving. Much like my chocolate craving.

 

 

 

The only difference between my chocolate craving and my weed craving is that I don't crave weed every day. :)

 

 

 

Sorry, I did a very bad job of this. But I tried to outline the fact that there is no reason to have alcohol legal, but not weed.

 

It goes something like that... But marijuana has a much longer list of negative effects.

 

 

 

One thing that worries me though, in counties where it is legalised, do you have some sort of marajuana breathaliser? Simalar to an alcahol one?

 

There are only a few roadside tests. Nothing like a breathalyser, they need to use blood tests to confirm marijuana. However, most of the time the smell or actions of the individual can give away intoxication.

 

 

 

A number of studies have shown that driving stoned doesn't impair your driving.[1] Of course, it's all in moderation. Driving can be dangerous if you consume too much of anything. In any case, I wouldn't recommend driving under the influence of anything (even caffeine).

 

 

 

While they may not be as harmful as other substances, they still are harmful. They can have very negative effects on certain individuals.

 

Lots of things are potentially harmful to your body. Playing sports, driving a car, lifting heavy objects, Advil, etc.

 

Potential for harm exists everywhere, you can't escape it. Be cautious but not paranoid. Choose your actions wisely and responsibly and just try to enjoy your life.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone's life is worth trading in for a chemically induced state of mind.

 

When you eat good food, play a fun sport or have good sex with a partner your body naturally releases a drug (dopamine) and you enter a chemically induced state of mind for a short while.

 

These activities always involve a certain risk, but you are in no way "trading your life in". Soft drugs tend to do even less bodily harm than the aforementioned activities, and often leave you in a much better chemically induced state of mind.

 

 

 

never killed anyone

 

Just a recap... Marijuana can kill. No overdose has ever been recorded, but many drug-induced deaths do occur every year from marijuana. My original post has an outline of marijuana-related deaths.

[How2PK]

The only type of drugs I've ever used were hash and weed. I've never used a lot though. It varied from once a week to once a month, and then maybe once or twice a year. Kind of grew over it. I don't care for any other type of drugs, although I'd like to try paddo's one time. Here in Holland it is legal, and I don't really think we got much worse because of it. I wouldn't like drug types such as LSD legal though. But hash and weed is al right by me.

[Tigra00]

 

...You mean like they do already?

 

 

 

If they legalized marijuana, they could tax it and effectively end the war on drugs as far as marijuana is concerned. They'd be saving money AND making it. Win/win, but they're apparently too [developmentally delayed] to realize that marijuana isn't really dangerous at all. There is a legal drug called [harmful plant] (currently trying to make it illegal, I think) that I'd say is more dangerous considering it completely screws with your mind I'm told...Marijuana is a pretty high-functioning drug. My uncle smokes marijuana ALL DAY, EVERYDAY, and you can never really even tell when he's high. He just laughs more easily if he is.

 

 

 

When you tax something like marijuana you will create a black market for tax free marijuana (like what already occurs for tobacco). You will still have gangs pushing it, the only thing you are doing is providing a more expensive legal alternative.

 

 

 

Yeeeea...There is like a total of 2 people in the USA who smoke tobacco that didn't come from a store (taxed). I mean, I'm sure some people grow their own, but it isn't like drugs are. You don't go to a guy and say "I need an ounce of tobacco, man!", there are no "tobacco pushers", lol.

 

 

 

You tax Marijuana, but not so much that it's much more expensive than it is on the streets. Make buying it on the streets illegal (say it' for "safety reasons" like people putting PCP or Formeldahyde in it) and legalize it in stores. Say an ounce is $400 on the streets, you could put a 10% sales tax on it and it'd be $440, which isn't that much more considering you wouldn't have to risk getting busted. Or make it 5%, whatever works.

 

 

 

I'm not saying legalizing it would just flat-out stop drug dealers, but I'm pretty sure it'd be quite a blow to their little markets.

[Kashi]

Probably someone already said this, but of course the only reason cannabis was made

 

illegal in the first place was the industrial use. Back in the 1800's and early to mid 1900's

 

cotton was simply the largest industry in the southern US, so when hemp came around and

 

it was discovered that you could make cloth out of it that is twice as comfortable, half the

 

price and 10x more durable, all the cotton people were afraid it'd put them out of business.

 

So they got together with Congress and bribed alot of people to make sure the bill for

 

illegalization passed. Thus the cotton industry was saved and one of the most useful and versatile

 

plants in the world was made illegal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide]This according to my pot-smoking second cousin.

 

 

 

However it seems pretty plausible.[/hide]

[user1991]

The only reason marijuana is still illegal is because the government is afraid that if people started to smoke it casually as we do tobacco, or drink alcohol, the population wouldn't be so narrow minded and actually question the dogmatisms and fear-enforced policies that are pushed upon us. Fact is, the fat cats upstairs want us to be conforming, working citizens, who do NOT question what we are told. That way, it is easier for them to force their agendas onto us, with little or no debate.

 

 

 

I'm not a conspiracy buff - I'm a realist. Politics has always been like this so it comes as no surprise to me. It is run by fear. Recently the use of fear as a political tool has increased exponentially. I do not believe at all that the government planned 9/11, but I do sincerely express the opinion that the way they have used it to create a below-the-level anti-Middle Eastern opinion is diabolical and should not be tolerated. Ever find yourself getting nervous when you're on a plane and you see a Muslim put his hand in his pocket? This is exactly what the government wants.

 

 

 

 

 

It was like that with Stalin and it's the same with Bush. However this time around, it isnt the peak of the hierarchical pyramid of power that pushes these ideals, but the hidden basement deep beneath. We are moving towards a take over in the Middle East. Our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan funds the minds of Al Qaeda; we have given them ammunition and we shall face the firing squad soon enough. Their membership has increased enormously when compared to what it was at the time of 9/11.

 

 

 

I'll cut to the chase 'cause this type of thing gets me frustrated. Critical thinking is not what the government wants from its citizens. They would much rather we spew out millions of people who are just about intelligent enough to have a job and "enrich" the economy but not smart enough to question what they are told. The likes of Faux news would have you believe that every person in Iran hates the USA and is a member of Al Qaeda, when in fact despite war on the horizon, hate of the USA isn't THAT common, and if it is present, it is more likely to be from the fact that in 1953 Eisenhower overthrew their government with a full out MILITARY coup to install the Shah, who in turn murdered millions of Iranian citizens. We did this because they were about to nationalize their oil industry - seriously - that's the actual reason. The reasons for all of this lie in two things; money and control. Iran is predicted to hold roughly 10% of the planet's oil beneath its surface, yet we are led to believe that the reasons we are considering invasion is because they "have a nuke" and "would use it unless we act immediately." As Ron Paul says, the only ways to make people give up their freedoms in the name of security is by use of fear, and demoralisation. Read that and then ask yourself what you feel when you watch the news.

 

 

 

"It's called the American Dream 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it." - George Carlin

[Unoalexi]

kelem_ryu: I'm sorry to hear about the schizophrenia. I agree that drugs should only be used responsibly/occasionally, problems tend to arise with any sort of abuse. (although this is a good rule of thumb for any activity, whether or not it's drug use)

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, they obviously messed up your brains, cuz u like drugs. Drugs kill. Kids dont do drugs. Cigaweed is harmful. Dont die.

 

This is a good example of the media's influence on the general public.

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia-

 

THC (the main psychoactive substance in Cannabis) is known to act on the hippocampus, an area of the brain associated with memory and learning), and impairs short term memory and attention for the duration of its effects; THC impairs episodic memory and learning in a dose-dependent manner whilst not affecting perceptual priming and working memory.[11]

 

 

 

just because they are less harmful doesnt mean they arent harmful. thats like saying i'll have less of a chance of dieing a i poke an unexploded bomb with a stick then if i poke 2...

 

A better way of reading that would be:

 

I once thought drugs were worse than alcohol/tobacco, but I've since discovered that this is not at all true.

 

 

 

As far as harm goes... Lots of things are potentially harmful. Driving a car can be potentially harmful. Playing a sport can be potentially harmful. But... the media shows those activities in a different (more positive) light than drugs.

 

Wrong. I just sat through hours of scare tactics in driver's ed. Playing a sport simply doesn't compare to the lethal effects of drugs, it's in a completely different category.

 

 

 

DRUGS are still DRUGS soft or not

 

Who would have guessed...? :-w

 

Exactly. All drugs HARM you. Even the prescription ones- they have 'side effects'.

 

 

 

 

I'm aware of my craving. But, that's all it is... a craving. Much like my chocolate craving.

 

 

 

The only difference between my chocolate craving and my weed craving is that I don't crave weed every day

 

Such a sad waste of a seventeen year old brain. It's all down hill from here, my friend. Good luck with your life. :boohoo:

 

 

 

 

 

The only reason marijuana is still illegal is because the government is afraid that if people started to smoke it casually as we do tobacco, or drink alcohol, the population wouldn't be so narrow minded and actually question the dogmatisms and fear-enforced policies that are pushed upon us. Fact is, the fat cats upstairs want us to be conforming, working citizens, who do NOT question what we are told. That way, it is easier for them to force their agendas onto us, with little or no debate.

 

 

 

Yeah. having a bunch of drugged-up hippies parading around is such a good idea!! :roll: Marijuana hurts your brain. If you don't believe me, then I shall show you the evidence.