Legalization of Marijuana

*cracks knuckles*

Don Corleone wrote:This is quite interesting...
I just wanna get some input out there.
1.an interesting thing, during the proabition, alcohol sales increased and actually if the proabition had never happened, organized crime wouldnt have occured in such a noticeable amount.

Which is why it will never happen.

Don Corleone wrote:2.i know people who smoke and stuff.bout 16.Tell me its healthy to start smokin weed and cig's at about age 16.

Yah, whoever's telling you this is not telling you the truth.

Don Corleone wrote:3.Alcohol does have good effects.Moderation is the megical word here.
It thins the blood, causing relief of stress.Its only bad for you when yer porin down shots over and over.

Which is why I said that it should only be illegal to be drunk above a cirtain BAC level.

Don Corleone wrote:4.and actually, NT is right on the DUI thing.
Maybe at first lots of people will get caught drivin high, but eventually itll become less and less often because you wont wanna drive hi instead of drunk.see my point?

No, I don't.

Don Corleone wrote:Nt,,, you say drugs cant cause people to hurt themselves?
I would say a car smashing into a tree at roughly 80 miles an hour is considered hurt.

Exactly.

KristallNacht wrote:And this is based on ASSOCIATION. Your first paragraph applies to alcoholics and smokers as well. The reason they don't move on is they aren't associating with people with access to the more hardcore stuff. Hence: Illegality and not weed is the gateway.

Statistics don't seem to agree with you on that. Marijuana is weaker than cigarettes and alcohol and is more addicting.

KristallNact wrote:Except a DUI = Driving Under the Influence. DWI = Driving While Intoxicated

My bad, but my point still stands.

KristallNact wrote:During the prohibition MORE people drank and MORE people drove drunk and MORE people overdrank. These problems decreased when it was legalized. Marijuana will have a similiar effect. Currently, driving while high is like a "well, I'm already doing something illegal, might as well not let that stop me" ntm Marijuana has effects that would actually REDUCE the willingness to drive, do to paranoia and the lack of wanting to do anything.

Except for one teeny tiny problem. Proabition failed because alcohol had a huge market before it was outlawed. However, marijuana has failed to obtain such a market. This skews your statistics.

KristallNacht wrote:That's hardly true. I find it funny that you're arguing from a textbook PoV and I'm arguing from a real-world PoV.

Yah, funny how truth vs reality works. I'm arguing from proven statistics, you're arguing from a few cases that you have seen bits and pieces from.

KristallNacth wrote:Does that mean that people that have sex more often will stop having endorphin production?

No, having sex does not clot your blood and nerves. You guys keep trying to compare this with completely unrelated things. Sex and Merijuana effects are completely unrelated.

KristallNacht wrote:I didn't even say that.

Never claimed you did. But it's true.

KristallNacht wrote:It's a naturally generated substance. It's more natural for someone to smoke marijuana than to wear glasses.

Oh, don't even try to run that with me. Methyl alcohol is a naturaly generated substance, but drinking it will blind, poison, and maybe even kill you.

KristallNacht wrote:Prove it's deadly. Marijuana can't kill anyone.

*sigh*
How many alcohol drinkers actualy OD from alcohol? A vast amount of them die because they were intoxicated, but did not actualy OD on it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, DUIs are the second leading cause of preventable death. Did they OD? Nope. Did they still die because they were drunk? Yup.

KristallNacht wrote:Just like sex increases endorphin output. So I guess too much sex increases the amount of pain and stress you receive on a daily basis. Once again, textbook =/= real life.

Like I said before. Having sex doesn't put the chemicals into your body that marijuana does.

KristallNacht wrote:maybe so, but marijuana won't (it fact quite the opposite) increase an individuals likelyhood to drive. And if they do, they'll probably obey the laws like they never have sober. Paranoia is a strong thing. I've watched people when they're high. They tend to act like their parents are watching their every move. One I saw became a total buzzkill and was talking everyone out of the things they'd do normally.

Doesn't necessarely have to be DUI.

KristallNacht wrote:they all have the same deadly chemicals. I'm assuming the poison in poison ivy wouldn't translate into smoke that well....

Well, you guessed wrong.

KristallNacht wrote:My point was it all plants have a huge mass of carcinegens when burned. Marijuana has no additional harmful chemicals.

Burning wood makes you cough, but it has no carcinogens.

What i meant about the DUI thing was that basically, itll be like drivin drunk over time. but then again, weed may have a wider fan base and thus increase hi drivers overall anyway.
and i believe DUI=DWI

civbase wrote:Statistics don't seem to agree with you on that. Marijuana is weaker than cigarettes and alcohol and is more addicting.

You did not address his point at all. He's saying that the reason that Pot is a gateway drug is because it helps you establish an early pathway of illegal drug buying. In order to get pot, you are making relations with dealers and thus stronger drugs are more available to you.

If marijuana was legal, these connections would be unnecessary and thus less people would be encouraged to move up the ladder in drug usage.

Don wrote: weed may have a wider fan base

Damn marijuana fanboys!

Civ wrote:Did they still die because they were drunk? Yup.

You say it as if the drinking itself killed them. It was they themselves who killed THEMSELVES by being dumb enough to drive a car while intoxicated. I know that judgment is impaired but even an intoxicated person knows that they should not be driving. It is also their fault for not being responsible with their drinking in the first place.

Mhmm. I'll be back later, but I asked my dad about Marijuana. Since was in College in the sixties, and has tried more stuff in his youth than y'all have even heard of, I suppose he's the resident expert.

His points:

Marijuana DOES make you lazy (I have statistics to back that up... in my statistics book.)

Marijuana doesn't force you to move to stronger stuff. But if you really like the high, you will look for stronger stuff because the high weakens over time.

Cigarettes and alcohol are all you need.

ReconToaster wrote:

civbase wrote:Statistics don't seem to agree with you on that. Marijuana is weaker than cigarettes and alcohol and is more addicting.

You did not address his point at all. He's saying that the reason that Pot is a gateway drug is because it helps you establish an early pathway of illegal drug buying. In order to get pot, you are making relations with dealers and thus stronger drugs are more available to you.

If marijuana was legal, these connections would be unnecessary and thus less people would be encouraged to move up the ladder in drug usage.

Yah, I've said this is true like 5 times. But it's also much more addicting which is a key factor in it being a gateway drug.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Did they still die because they were drunk? Yup.

You say it as if the drinking itself killed them. It was they themselves who killed THEMSELVES by being dumb enough to drive a car while intoxicated. I know that judgment is impaired but even an intoxicated person knows that they should not be driving. It is also their fault for not being responsible with their drinking in the first place.

Most drunk driving arrests are around .09 to .25 BAC. Maybe they are dumb, but they let it happen. Do you think that's going to change just because it's marijuana instead of alcohol? Judgement is the first to go.

CivBase wrote:
No, I don't.

People don't want to drive high.

civbase wrote:
Statistics don't seem to agree with you on that. Marijuana is weaker than cigarettes and alcohol and is more addicting.

its funyn how you say "statistics don't agree" but they also don't go against. Association is the gateway. Most people I know that are really into weed anyway never move on to other stuff because they're happy with what they have and can't afford anything else.

KristallNact wrote:Except a DUI = Driving Under the Influence. DWI = Driving While Intoxicated

My bad, but my point still stands.

civbase wrote:
Except for one teeny tiny problem. Proabition failed because alcohol had a huge market before it was outlawed. However, marijuana has failed to obtain such a market. This skews your statistics.

illicit substances, mainly marijuana have a HUGE market.

civbase wrote:
Yah, funny how truth vs reality works. I'm arguing from proven statistics, you're arguing from a few cases that you have seen bits and pieces from.

The funny thing about statistics is they can be manipulated into anything. From a purely statistical standpoint, it can be said the decline of Pirates throughout the world is a cause of global warming.

KristallNacth wrote:
No, having sex does not clot your blood and nerves. You guys keep trying to compare this with completely unrelated things. Sex and Merijuana effects are completely unrelated.

Sex causes endorphin output. Your argument was the marijuana-dopamine thing. I see that this is very relevant as a "cause-effect" based around natural chemicals in the body.

civbase wrote:
Never claimed you did. But it's true.

I can't remember what it was now, but you still had it in a quote box with my name attached.

civbase wrote:
Oh, don't even try to run that with me. Methyl alcohol is a naturaly generated substance, but drinking it will blind, poison, and maybe even kill you.

And marijuana won't. omg, see how that works?

civbase wrote:
*sigh*
How many alcohol drinkers actualy OD from alcohol? A vast amount of them die because they were intoxicated, but did not actualy OD on it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, DUIs are the second leading cause of preventable death. Did they OD? Nope. Did they still die because they were drunk? Yup.

Except this doesn't work as being high really never causes them to do such things. The few people i know that have driven while high, not only survived (I've never heard of a marijuana related traffic collision) but also were scared out of their minds and will never do that again. And plenty of people have died from drinking too much alcohol. Hell, more people have died from drinking too much water than have died from being too high.

civbase wrote:
Like I said before. Having sex doesn't put the chemicals into your body that marijuana does.

I never said they were the same. Its similar in that endorphins generate a pleasurable mental state. Having sex (specifically an orgasm) releases large amounts of endorphins into the body. This chemical release it what causes sex addicts and the general NEED for sex. You may say "it's different" but I'm pretty sure systematically destroying someones arguments piece by piece is a strategy. So I just effectively destroyed your whole dopamine argument.

civbase wrote:
Doesn't necessarely have to be DUI.

And what will it be? If you use DUIs as an argument to suggest chance of hurting themselves or others, but concede that it won't be a DUI, then what will it be?

civbase wrote:
Well, you guessed wrong.

I meant "well" as to mean in a healthy fashion. So I guessed that poison Ivy smoke would be more harmful.

civbase wrote:
Burning wood makes you cough, but it has no carcinogens.

Then you are horribly misinformed as every single plant in the world, when burned, the smoke contains over 200 of the same cancer causing chemicals. Among the other very huge number of harmful but not cancer related substances.

ITS LEGAL WHERE I LIVE BEE-ACH!!!

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:
No, I don't.

People don't want to drive high.

But people are stupid and do anyways. Who wants to drive drunk? Who wants to drive while texting?

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
Statistics don't seem to agree with you on that. Marijuana is weaker than cigarettes and alcohol and is more addicting.

its funyn how you say "statistics don't agree" but they also don't go against. Association is the gateway. Most people I know that are really into weed anyway never move on to other stuff because they're happy with what they have and can't afford anything else.

And how long have they smoked?

KristallNacht wrote:

KristallNact wrote:Except a DUI = Driving Under the Influence. DWI = Driving While Intoxicated

My bad, but my point still stands.

But what does this have to do with anything?

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
Except for one teeny tiny problem. Proabition failed because alcohol had a huge market before it was outlawed. However, marijuana has failed to obtain such a market. This skews your statistics.

illicit substances, mainly marijuana have a HUGE market.

Not compared to the alcohol market.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
Yah, funny how truth vs reality works. I'm arguing from proven statistics, you're arguing from a few cases that you have seen bits and pieces from.

The funny thing about statistics is they can be manipulated into anything. From a purely statistical standpoint, it can be said the decline of Pirates throughout the world is a cause of global warming.

Yah, same goes for reality. Just look at how Hitler got into office. People saw bits and pieces, they liked what they saw.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:
No, having sex does not clot your blood and nerves. You guys keep trying to compare this with completely unrelated things. Sex and Merijuana effects are completely unrelated.

Sex causes endorphin output. Your argument was the marijuana-dopamine thing. I see that this is very relevant as a "cause-effect" based around natural chemicals in the body.

But sex doesn't use foreign chemicals to increase your endorphine output. Like I said, they are unrelated, they work in different ways.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
Never claimed you did. But it's true.

I can't remember what it was now, but you still had it in a quote box with my name attached.

Oops, I see what you're getting at. My bad.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
Oh, don't even try to run that with me. Methyl alcohol is a naturaly generated substance, but drinking it will blind, poison, and maybe even kill you.

And marijuana won't. omg, see how that works?

It doesn't dirrectly kill you, but it does indirrectly. Can you honestly say that slower reaction, hallucinations, paranoia, impared short-term memory, impared concentration and coordination, distorted sence of time sight and touch, decreased initiative/ambition, increased risk of lung cancer, weakened immunity, and changed hormone levels have no negative effects?

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
*sigh*
How many alcohol drinkers actualy OD from alcohol? A vast amount of them die because they were intoxicated, but did not actualy OD on it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, DUIs are the second leading cause of preventable death. Did they OD? Nope. Did they still die because they were drunk? Yup.

Except this doesn't work as being high really never causes them to do such things. The few people i know that have driven while high, not only survived (I've never heard of a marijuana related traffic collision) but also were scared out of their minds and will never do that again. And plenty of people have died from drinking too much alcohol. Hell, more people have died from drinking too much water than have died from being too high.

That's because, like you said, you can't OD on marijuana.
They were scared the first time they did it, but they did it anyways. That is proof enough that they will do it, even if it's just once. How many people drive drunk on a regular basis anyways? Odds are, after the first few times they are caught or get in a crash.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
Like I said before. Having sex doesn't put the chemicals into your body that marijuana does.

I never said they were the same.

Yet you're using them as a comparison.

KristallNacht wrote:Its similar in that endorphins generate a pleasurable mental state. Having sex (specifically an orgasm) releases large amounts of endorphins into the body. This chemical release it what causes sex addicts and the general NEED for sex.

But it generates it naturaly, there is no insertion of foreign chemicals.

KristallNacht wrote:You may say "it's different" but I'm pretty sure systematically destroying someones arguments piece by piece is a strategy. So I just effectively destroyed your whole dopamine argument.

NT, how many people do dangerous activites while having sex?

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
Doesn't necessarely have to be DUI.

And what will it be? If you use DUIs as an argument to suggest chance of hurting themselves or others, but concede that it won't be a DUI, then what will it be?

Military/Guard duty
Construction work
Lifeguarding
Crop dusting
Surgery/Medical work (House, lol)
The list goes on and on, many of which aren't just dangerous to you

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
Burning wood makes you cough, but it has no carcinogens.

Then you are horribly misinformed as every single plant in the world, when burned, the smoke contains over 200 of the same cancer causing chemicals. Among the other very huge number of harmful but not cancer related substances.

All right then. But how many people smoke trees? These plants also don't produce the high effect as marijuana and other drugs.
What about tar? How many plants burn that much tar? Marijuana smoke contains SIX TIMES as much tar as cigarette smoke.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:ITS LEGAL WHERE I LIVE BEE-ACH!!!

im not kidding

Kasrkin Seath wrote:

Kasrkin Seath wrote:ITS LEGAL WHERE I LIVE BEE-ACH!!!

im not kidding

And do people smoke it often?

CivBase wrote:
But people are stupid and do anyways. Who wants to drive drunk? Who wants to drive while texting?

My point was being high makes the individual not want to drive.

civbase wrote:
And how long have they smoked?

Few years. They also smoke on a daily bases.

civbase wrote:
But what does this have to do with anything?

you need to work on your quoting as you keep applying things i didn't say to my quote boxes and cutting out what you are actually replying to, thus making it nearly impossible for me to understand where your current comment fits.

civbase wrote:
Not compared to the alcohol market.

So?

civbase wrote:
Yah, same goes for reality. Just look at how Hitler got into office. People saw bits and pieces, they liked what they saw.

I think the difference is I've exposed myself to the statistics and the real life effects. You see only the statistics. Actually, you aren't even seeing the statistics but only whats written up on the results.

civbase wrote:
But sex doesn't use foreign chemicals to increase your endorphine output. Like I said, they are unrelated, they work in different ways.

But its still an increased output of a bodily chemical based on a form of outside influence.

civbase wrote:
It doesn't dirrectly kill you, but it does indirrectly. Can you honestly say that slower reaction, hallucinations, paranoia, impared short-term memory, impared concentration and coordination, distorted sence of time sight and touch, decreased initiative/ambition, increased risk of lung cancer, weakened immunity, and changed hormone levels have no negative effects?

1. Lung cancer is smoke. Marijuana doesn't independently affect that.
2. Can you honestly say it has no positive effects?

civbase wrote:
That's because, like you said, you can't OD on marijuana.
They were scared the first time they did it, but they did it anyways. That is proof enough that they will do it, even if it's just once. How many people drive drunk on a regular basis anyways? Odds are, after the first few times they are caught or get in a crash.

I think you missed where I said the "few". Most of them didn't even want to at the time. They realized they ended up in a situation that kinda led them to do that. So not only are they not gonna do it again, they've learned to be more responsible about it.

civbase wrote:
Yet you're using them as a comparison.

Because they are very similiar. It's not the same chemicals.

civbase wrote:
But it generates it naturaly, there is no insertion of foreign chemicals.

Still and outside force. Whether it's a chemical based release or a stimulation based release.

civbase wrote:
NT, how many people do dangerous activites while having sex?

That's not the argument I'm fighting with the sex comparison. Its the whole loss of euphoria based on excessive use argument. Essentially pointing out that its a non-issue.

civbase wrote:
Military/Guard duty
Construction work
Lifeguarding
Crop dusting
Surgery/Medical work (House, lol)
The list goes on and on, many of which aren't just dangerous to you

and smoking marijuana causes crop dusting? Honestly, I don't see how any of that has anything to do with the argument I posed. What I said was that you were using DUIs as a reason while marijuana can cause someone to hurt another or themselves. You then conceded that marijuana may not lead to DUIs, and I asked what it is doing to cause someone to hurt themselves or others, and you proceed to post this completely useless list.

civbase wrote:
All right then. But how many people smoke trees? These plants also don't produce the high effect as marijuana and other drugs.
What about tar? How many plants burn that much tar? Marijuana smoke contains SIX TIMES as much tar as cigarette smoke.

My point is marijuana contains nothing considerably more dangerous than any other plant.
My next point is that marijuana doesn't have to be smoked to get its effects.

Let's compare marijuana to Salvia. Salvia is legal, AS AN INCENSE. But, when smoked, provides a hallucinogenic high far more severe than marijuana, for a short duration. And that's only the low-grade (5x-10x). Salvia 100x is sold legally to anyone over 18 years of age. Salvia also doesn't have any lethargy associated with it, one of the main things that keeps marijuana use very safe.

CivBase wrote:

Kasrkin Seath wrote:

Kasrkin Seath wrote:ITS LEGAL WHERE I LIVE BEE-ACH!!!

im not kidding

And do people smoke it often?

1. He's speaking of medical marijuana (he lives in Michigan).
2. I don't think he does.

Yeah, its medical

Not currently
I may get prescribed by my nuero surgeon though

lololol

yeah....nerve damage....


its funny how marijuana is for nerve damage, and nerve damage is one of the few diagnoses left in the world that pretty much depends entirely on what the individual says and can't be accurately tested.

well, its more or less because of a minor genetic disorder and because of two swollen/slightly-out-of-place discs in my neck

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:
But people are stupid and do anyways. Who wants to drive drunk? Who wants to drive while texting?

My point was being high makes the individual not want to drive.

Yet you just said they did anyways. And some people may not be as smart as your friends.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
And how long have they smoked?

Few years. They also smoke on a daily bases.

So, not exceptionaly long then. Do they smoke more than they did at the start?

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
But what does this have to do with anything?

you need to work on your quoting as you keep applying things i didn't say to my quote boxes and cutting out what you are actually replying to, thus making it nearly impossible for me to understand where your current comment fits.

?
That's what was in your quote.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
Not compared to the alcohol market.

So?

So the alcohol market was still much bigger, leaving many many many more people outraged at the proabition. Not so much for marijuana, as the majority never uses it.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
Yah, same goes for reality. Just look at how Hitler got into office. People saw bits and pieces, they liked what they saw.

I think the difference is I've exposed myself to the statistics and the real life effects. You see only the statistics. Actually, you aren't even seeing the statistics but only whats written up on the results.

My point still standes. Your reality and the truth conflict, but are both correct, so saying this gets you nowhere.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
But sex doesn't use foreign chemicals to increase your endorphine output. Like I said, they are unrelated, they work in different ways.

But its still an increased output of a bodily chemical based on a form of outside influence.

I never said extended release of dopamine is what decreases it.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
It doesn't dirrectly kill you, but it does indirrectly. Can you honestly say that slower reaction, hallucinations, paranoia, impared short-term memory, impared concentration and coordination, distorted sence of time sight and touch, decreased initiative/ambition, increased risk of lung cancer, weakened immunity, and changed hormone levels have no negative effects?

1. Lung cancer is smoke. Marijuana doesn't independently affect that.

Yah, smoking things gives you lung cancer. I don't care what you're smoking, that's still an effect of whatever you're smoking.

KristallNacht wrote:2. Can you honestly say it has no positive effects?

No long-term ones. And the short-term ones typicaly lead to long-term problems.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
That's because, like you said, you can't OD on marijuana.
They were scared the first time they did it, but they did it anyways. That is proof enough that they will do it, even if it's just once. How many people drive drunk on a regular basis anyways? Odds are, after the first few times they are caught or get in a crash.

I think you missed where I said the "few". Most of them didn't even want to at the time. They realized they ended up in a situation that kinda led them to do that. So not only are they not gonna do it again, they've learned to be more responsible about it.

But they still did it. It is still an increase of danger. My point still stands.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
Yet you're using them as a comparison.

Because they are very similiar. It's not the same chemicals.

The only similarity between them is that it increases endorphins.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
But it generates it naturaly, there is no insertion of foreign chemicals.

Still and outside force. Whether it's a chemical based release or a stimulation based release.

Yah, but both have different effects, negating your point.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
NT, how many people do dangerous activites while having sex?

That's not the argument I'm fighting with the sex comparison. Its the whole loss of euphoria based on excessive use argument. Essentially pointing out that its a non-issue.

No, my point is that the short-term effects of sex do not cause near as much danger as the short-term effects of marijuana usage as sex is not done in times of danger.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
Military/Guard duty
Construction work
Lifeguarding
Crop dusting
Surgery/Medical work (House, lol)
The list goes on and on, many of which aren't just dangerous to you

and smoking marijuana causes crop dusting?

Wtf are you talking about? You asked for other dangerous activites other than driving that could be done when high, so I gave them to you.

KristallNacht wrote:Honestly, I don't see how any of that has anything to do with the argument I posed. What I said was that you were using DUIs as a reason while marijuana can cause someone to hurt another or themselves. You then conceded that marijuana may not lead to DUIs, and I asked what it is doing to cause someone to hurt themselves or others, and you proceed to post this completely useless list.

It weakens their sences, reaction times, ect. Doing any of these tasks in such a state could be very dangerous.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
All right then. But how many people smoke trees? These plants also don't produce the high effect as marijuana and other drugs.
What about tar? How many plants burn that much tar? Marijuana smoke contains SIX TIMES as much tar as cigarette smoke.

My point is marijuana contains nothing considerably more dangerous than any other plant.

you know, except for tar.

KristallNacht wrote:My next point is that marijuana doesn't have to be smoked to get its effects.

Yah, but how many of your friends that use marijuana don't smoke it? If you're talking about needles, then of course you've got HIV, the possibility of missing your mark, extream ease of overdose, ect ect.

KristallNacht wrote:Let's compare marijuana to Salvia. Salvia is legal, AS AN INCENSE. But, when smoked, provides a hallucinogenic high far more severe than marijuana, for a short duration. And that's only the low-grade (5x-10x). Salvia 100x is sold legally to anyone over 18 years of age. Salvia also doesn't have any lethargy associated with it, one of the main things that keeps marijuana use very safe.

But is it sold for smoking purposes, or for utility usages?

yeah...sure it is....

it has nothing to do with the $100 you 'donated' to the hospital...

lol

No it isn't, I swear...

Kasrkin Seath wrote:lol

No it isn't, I swear...

:suspect:

Do you mean yes it is?

:suspect:

$100 is like nothing, no one would take that
especially since the shit is about to hit the an around here.... Chrysler has already hired a bankruptcy firm

CivBase wrote:
Yet you just said they did anyways. And some people may not be as smart as your friends.

Did anyway because they forced themselves into a situation that recquired it

civbase wrote:
So, not exceptionaly long then. Do they smoke more than they did at the start?

well since no one starts at a daily basis...

civbase wrote:
?
That's what was in your quote.

You didn't quote me. You quoted yourself with my name attached and cut out my quote you were actually responding to.

civbase wrote:
So the alcohol market was still much bigger, leaving many many many more people outraged at the proabition. Not so much for marijuana, as the majority never uses it.

Except for the fact that the population was much smaller back then. And actually its not a clear majority that doesn't use. It's close.

civbase wrote:
My point still standes. Your reality and the truth conflict, but are both correct, so saying this gets you nowhere.

No, the 'truth' is based on looking for a statement and manipulating results to fit that statement, just as I'm sure you have seen with violence in videogames studies.

civbase wrote:
I never said extended release of dopamine is what decreases it.

you actually did, see the following:

civbase wrote:You'll get that high feeling at first because it increases the relase of dopamine, which causes pleasure. However, the high effect wears off after a short while and the user comes crashing back to earth (this is when the depressant part kicks in). And after extended use the dopamine production comes to a complete hault (even with the drug).

civbase wrote:
Yah, smoking things gives you lung cancer. I don't care what you're smoking, that's still an effect of whatever you're smoking.

Doesn't have to be smoked.

civbase wrote:
No long-term ones. And the short-term ones typicaly lead to long-term problems.

based on abuse, not on use.

civbase wrote:
But they still did it. It is still an increase of danger. My point still stands.

It's actually a decrease in danger as the drugs effects lead individuals away from the situation that it makes more dangerous.

civbase wrote:
The only similarity between them is that it increases endorphins.

based on outside influences....therefore they are actually very similar as that's what we are discussing in this sub-post.

civbase wrote:
Yah, but both have different effects, negating your point.

They actually have the same effects: increase in euphoria caused by a release of chemicals from the brain produced by chemical influences.

civbase wrote:
No, my point is that the short-term effects of sex do not cause near as much danger as the short-term effects of marijuana usage as sex is not done in times of danger.

And my point is that we aren't discussing the dangerousness in this sub-post, but the effects of chemical dependency.

civbase wrote:
Wtf are you talking about? You asked for other dangerous activites other than driving that could be done when high, so I gave them to you.

....but that implies that the individual is that irresponsible. All those would be dangerous while eating a bowl of cereal.

civbase wrote:
It weakens their sences, reaction times, ect. Doing any of these tasks in such a state could be very dangerous.

Eating a bowl of cereal while doing the above would be very dangerous.

civbase wrote:
you know, except for tar.

Which doesn't kill very fast, or is even normally the reason the individual dies. But they all have tar. 6x very very little is still very little. This is one of those moments where a relation doesn't accurately apply. Like the iPhone 3G being twice as fast as the iPhone. Yes, technologically, the iPhone 3G could potentially run 2x as fast, but when attached to the EDGE network, it runs no faster. Apple was actually taken to court on this.

civbase wrote:
Yah, but how many of your friends that use marijuana don't smoke it? If you're talking about needles, then of course you've got HIV, the possibility of missing your mark, extream ease of overdose, ect ect.

Never heard of anyone injecting marijuana. Vaporizers, hashbrownies, etc. All get rid of smoke, and generate the same effects.

civbase wrote:
But is it sold for smoking purposes, or for utility usages?

It's sold as an incense. It's illegal to smoke Salvia. But it's also very known that no one uses it as an incense.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:
Yet you just said they did anyways. And some people may not be as smart as your friends.

Did anyway because they forced themselves into a situation that recquired it

Doesn't matter. My point is that people will still do it.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
So, not exceptionaly long then. Do they smoke more than they did at the start?

well since no one starts at a daily basis...

So yah, over time they smoked more and more. That would be because their bodies are building up a tollerance. Within a few years, it will be too weak to enduce the high they are in search of. Whether they move on to a stronger drug or not depends on who they are.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
?
That's what was in your quote.

You didn't quote me. You quoted yourself with my name attached and cut out my quote you were actually responding to.

In your post you quoted yourself. Go ahead and look.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
So the alcohol market was still much bigger, leaving many many many more people outraged at the proabition. Not so much for marijuana, as the majority never uses it.

Except for the fact that the population was much smaller back then. And actually its not a clear majority that doesn't use. It's close.

Yes, because every other person I see on the streets uses marijuana...
A very very clear majority of americans are social drinkers (as in holidays and family get-togethers and whatnot).

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
My point still standes. Your reality and the truth conflict, but are both correct, so saying this gets you nowhere.

No, the 'truth' is based on looking for a statement and manipulating results to fit that statement, just as I'm sure you have seen with violence in videogames studies.

Have you not done the same with what you've seen? They haven't had any problems yet, so they never will is basicly what I'm hearing from you.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
I never said extended release of dopamine is what decreases it.

you actually did, see the following:

civbase wrote:You'll get that high feeling at first because it increases the relase of dopamine, which causes pleasure. However, the high effect wears off after a short while and the user comes crashing back to earth (this is when the depressant part kicks in). And after extended use the dopamine production comes to a complete hault (even with the drug).

After extended use of the drug, the dopamine production comes to a hault. I never said it is the extensive output of dopamine that causes this, that is where the chemicals in the drug come into play.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
Yah, smoking things gives you lung cancer. I don't care what you're smoking, that's still an effect of whatever you're smoking.

Doesn't have to be smoked.

civbase wrote:
No long-term ones. And the short-term ones typicaly lead to long-term problems.

based on abuse, not on use.

hehe, that rhymes
No, long term use leads to long term problems. Legalizing the drug will obviously lead to long term abusers as this is an extreamly addictive drug. You don't need to smoke it 10x a day to have long term effects from it. 1x a week works just fine.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
But they still did it. It is still an increase of danger. My point still stands.

It's actually a decrease in danger as the drugs effects lead individuals away from the situation that it makes more dangerous.

No, it isn't. It leads them away from driving, how does that decrease danger? That just means that there's no increase in danger. And as I said before, they still did it. They forced themselves into the situation and they did it. IT WILL HAPPEN! And if it happens at all, that is obviously an increase in danger.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
The only similarity between them is that it increases endorphins.

based on outside influences....therefore they are actually very similar as that's what we are discussing in this sub-post.

No they are not. I have said it before and I will say it again, drugs use foreign chemicals while sex uses chemicals that your body is built to create. That is why having sex doesn't give you lung cancer, genius.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
Yah, but both have different effects, negating your point.

They actually have the same effects: increase in euphoria caused by a release of chemicals from the brain produced by chemical influences.

Like I said before, having sex doesn't give you lung cancer. You only pointed out one of numerous effects. Getting birthday preasents increases endorphine output, but it doesn't have the same effects as smoking marijuana.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
No, my point is that the short-term effects of sex do not cause near as much danger as the short-term effects of marijuana usage as sex is not done in times of danger.

And my point is that we aren't discussing the dangerousness in this sub-post, but the effects of chemical dependency.

The effects of chemical dependency? Ha! I believe there was a woman in the news a while back. She smoked weed every day in the same spot, in the corner of the third floor of some building. Well, one day she went there and the building had been demolished. So, she went next door, third floor, corner. They found her dead a while later. Why? Because her brain went crazy, that's why. When faced with a different surrounding, her brain basicly had a nervous breakdown and shutdown itself. There's just possible one long-term effect of chemical dependency.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
Wtf are you talking about? You asked for other dangerous activites other than driving that could be done when high, so I gave them to you.

....but that implies that the individual is that irresponsible. All those would be dangerous while eating a bowl of cereal.

Said it before, saying it again. Judgement is the first thing to go.

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
you know, except for tar.

Which doesn't kill very fast, or is even normally the reason the individual dies. But they all have tar. 6x very very little is still very little. This is one of those moments where a relation doesn't accurately apply. Like the iPhone 3G being twice as fast as the iPhone. Yes, technologically, the iPhone 3G could potentially run 2x as fast, but when attached to the EDGE network, it runs no faster. Apple was actually taken to court on this.

Beautiful, isn't it? This is the result of tar from ciagarettes. Now, lets multiply that by 6 and see what happens.

Oh, lovely. Because the tar from cigarettes obviously don't kill people...

KristallNacht wrote:

civbase wrote:
But is it sold for smoking purposes, or for utility usages?

It's sold as an incense. It's illegal to smoke Salvia. But it's also very known that no one uses it as an incense.

So it's an inhailent? Well, there you go. Inhailents are worse than any drug, but you obviously can't make them illegal.

And look at what happens when you inhale Burning Chuck Norris:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QPK-SNGn8I

don't get me started on inhalants...