Legalizing Drugs On The Horizon

[gdb]

Wasn't hemp/dope first made illegal because newspaperman Hearst poured money and influence into DC in order to boost sales for his logging companies which could be best done by forcing paper companies to switch from renewable-resource hemp to trees? Or is this one of those urban legends?

Either way, it's time for some sanity when it comes to drug laws/enforcement. Just-saying-no has created a subculture of illegal, underground behavior, and an unregulated industry. For the most part, all it succeeds at is to actively generate criminals -- on both ends. Users are forced into unlawfullness while sellers find themselves adopting dodgy gateway behaviors. Instead of finding useful jobs, sellers get hooked into a shady career path which, any way you put it, does not look good on a resume. And, from what I've heard, it doesn't even pay that well.

Plus it promotes the culture of legislating "morality." Making victimless crimes a crime because they offend someone else's sense of morality is not going to stop them from doing it. It's just going to punish them for doing it. And that's not moral. It's sadistic.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

Please post where this has been written, and I don't mean anti-drug sites but any real studies that show this please. This is the opposite of all research I have read about it for the last decade. I would be interested in hearing more.

https://www.aim.org/media-monitor/medical-marijuana-causes-cancer/

 

[dr_teng]

https://www.aim.org/media-monitor/medical-marijuana-causes-cancer/

Just FYI, aim.org is a partisan shill site and is pushing a very obvious political bias. They are about as interested in accuracy in media as Fox News is.

In regards to the article itself, it mentions a few studies, however does not link to them. This is a common way of avoiding allowing your readers to find the methodology used in said studies, since many studies are not exactly interested with accuracy and used flawed research methodology to come to their conclusions.

While I personally believe that marijuana smoke contributes some small risk of lung cancer (I do not smoke it myself), that article above isn't proof of anything.

 

[El Skutto]

Or you could just buy a vaporizer and avoid having to smoke it at all. The German-made Volcano is very popular up here.

 

[pixletwin]

You could say any report is biased.

Common sense tells me that inhaling smoke is not good for your lungs. Whether it causes cancer or not, I doubt. But it can't be good for you.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

You could say any report is biased.

Common sense tells me that inhaling smoke is not good for your lungs. Whether it causes cancer or not, I doubt. But it can't be good for you.

did you expect them to say anything else??? seems like they'll look for any cause or reason to smoke.

 

[pixletwin]

That's because they are in JEOPARDY of being addicted.

 

[OSCORP]

I know just one thing. I smoked AND i drank last night, and i'm never drinking again!



Gotta hit the weights and get it outta me.

 

[dr_teng]

You could say any report is biased.

Common sense tells me that inhaling smoke is not good for your lungs. Whether it causes cancer or not, I doubt. But it can't be good for you.

Yes, one could say that, but there's a massive difference between studies conducted in a proper scientific manner, and ones conducted to reach a specific conclusion. Without access to the test data and methods used, and considering the obvious slant of the site, I wouldn't trust anything they link without much deeper analysis.

 

[Badvermin]

For someone who used to smoke weed you sure are uptight about my spelling typo. Perhaps you should take it up again?

I only made one comment about your spelling error, and put a little "peace" guy after it to show I was just being silly. My other uses of the word were specifically used to illustrate just how fallacious your argument was, it had nothing to do with your lack of spelling skills.

It seems you are the one with a thin skin. But I suppose taking umbrage to one word is easier than responding to the actual content of my post.

 

[pixletwin]

I was just being silly too.

I would rather joke around than respond to anything anymore. This topic has become about as pointless and circular as a religious discussion.

I understand you don't want to feel like you made bad choices and you don't want to feel bad about encouraging others to do the same.

For me the effects of being vice free I see in my own life as opposed to the lives of many of my friends at varying levels is all the proof I need.

 

[DannieDarKo]

Shatterer of Dreams kicks ass!!!!

 

[Shatterer of Dreams]

Shatterer of Dreams kicks ass!!!!

Damn straight!!!!! I don't know why you are saying this but i'm not going to contradict it. I'm glad you feel the need to say it though, more people need to.

 

[Dusty]

Damn straight!!!!! I don't know why you are saying this but i'm not going to contradict it. I'm glad you feel the need to say it though, more people need to.

SoD is pretty cool I guess

No really, Jeff's awesome. And at the end of the day he has to find some way to deal with constantly being the bearer of bad news and shattering dreams left and right

 

[gdb]

I think that if smoking marijuana has ever been the suspect of someone actually suffering from lung cancer -- or any sort of cancer -- we would never have heard the end of it. I think we would have been told their name and shown pictures of their lungs.

This has not happened.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

I think that if smoking marijuana has ever been the suspect of someone actually suffering from lung cancer -- or any sort of cancer -- we would never have heard the end of it. I think we would have been told their name and shown pictures of their lungs.

This has not happened.

I agree, it would have been the story of the day and the news media would have been shoving it down our throats with a shovel.

 

[The Chaver]

I think that if smoking marijuana has ever been the suspect of someone actually suffering from lung cancer -- or any sort of cancer -- we would never have heard the end of it. I think we would have been told their name and shown pictures of their lungs.

This has not happened.

Yeah, I was once told by some teachers or drug counselors that smoking one joint was like smoking ten cigarettes?? Turns out that was total bull^^^^!

 

[Valfar]

Yeah, I was once told by some teachers or drug counselors that smoking one joint was like smoking ten cigarettes?? Turns out that was total bull^^^^!

I think what they mean't was the amount of Tar you take in because of lack of a filter when you smoke weed, i smoked it a few times but, i can't handle the stuff..i had White Widow and Purple Cush..never again..too potent..and besides i don't like most people i meet who smoke weed, they seem so..off and grubby or too let loose for their own good, this is just my experience from meeting people who love to smoke it, plus having long hair again for me was a bother because people would ask me downtown all the time "yo! wanna buy some weed!" fack ovv! i got soo sick of it, plus there is the stereotype some cops have with guys that have long hair=pothead..which is soo not the case..hell most thug trash are the majority i think that smoke it these days..if were talking teenagers.

 

[gdb]

Yeah, I was once told by some teachers or drug counselors that smoking one joint was like smoking ten cigarettes?? Turns out that was total bull^^^^!

Maybe they meant that to get as high as smoking one joint you would have to smoke ten cigarettes? No, probably not.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Maybe they meant that to get as high as smoking one joint you would have to smoke ten cigarettes? No, probably not.

Actually, the way people smoke the dope can increase the damage it does, holding it in the lungs for longer periods of time. But most people smoke far less of it than the average cigarette smoker, so I'm betting it at least evens out or favors the dope smoker in terms of cancer risks.