# What do you think of pot? How often do you smoke?



## Agatha

- everyday
- once a week
- once in a while

recently i discovered that my son (19 years old) smokes pot almost every day.
he says that it is better to smoke pot than to xloke cigarttes
do you agree? i am having a realy hard time coping with this ...


----------



## Weston

Having grown up in the 60s and going to college in the 70s, yes I was exposed to this and joined the crowd for two or three years and used it. While I don't condone putting foreign substances into one's lungs, I can tell you without reservation that it did not have any serious side effects other than running the risk of having a (bogus in my opinion) criminal record here in the US if caught. It was not addictive in any way, and did NOT lead to other drugs as the propagandists would have us believe. I eventually grew bored with it, and may have developed an allergy to it. I got to where I did not like the smell. But while it lasted, music was the most fantastic experience possible -- indescribable.

I am now approaching 57 years old with still no signs of adverse side effects from that time. Who can say though? Maybe I would have been a far more successful illustrator, developing better works habits without the two years of pot intake. We will never know. 

Sorry to hear you are going through this. I do not have children, but I know you want and need the absolute best for him.


----------



## Crudblud

I tried it a few times in my teens, for me it was a case of rapidly diminishing returns and I have no interest in doing it again.

As for weed being better than tobacco; I'm not convinced that inhaling any kind of smoke can be qualified as a healthy activity, whether it's tobacco or weed or anything else, but I do not have any specific knowledge of the health effects of weed.


----------



## Kopachris

While cannabis smoke does contain some of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke (which you'll get by burning just about any organic material), studies have shown no link between smoking pot and getting cancer, unlike studies of tobacco smoking: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2006/05/23-03.html


----------



## Manxfeeder

His reasoning reminds me of an old friend when I was in college. His doctor wanted him to stop drinking so many Cokes and told him even drinking beer would be better than drinking all those sodas. So my friend started drinking beer.


----------



## quack

Nicotine is far more addictive than cannabis, leading often to long term dependency on tobacco and a much greater consumption compared to weed. The negatives are that people tend to take unhealthy smoke deeper into their lungs when smoking weed compared to tobacco and cannabis is associated with an increased chance of conditions such as schizophrenia in some people.

That said you are possibly doing more damage to your health due to stress and worry about this issue than your son is doing to his own health smoking.


----------



## Ukko

Kopachris said:


> While cannabis smoke does contain some of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke (which you'll get by burning just about any organic material), studies have shown no link between smoking pot and getting cancer, unlike studies of tobacco smoking: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2006/05/23-03.html


I have heard of recent studies that contradict those findings, but lack the interest needed to seek them out.


----------



## Mesa

Errr, encourage him to write poetry and give him a guitar?


----------



## Sonata

I've never used marijuana personally. Considered it in college and opted not to. I'm not troubled by occasional recreational use, but frequent use can have adverse health effects. "almost every day" certainly is concerning. Nevermind the cost of obtaining that much, which can be an adverse effect on ones pocketbook, it can alter the brain and put one at risk of loss of ambition, focus, and memory. It can also lead to depressive symptoms. It can impair driving as well, so there's that concern as there is with alcohol or certain medications. I've not read any specific studies on the lung damage, but I'd be surprised if daily use didn't do some damage.

I think marijuana has it's place; I think there is even a role in careful use medically and can provide some seriously ill patients valuable relief. I would not be opposed to legalization; a great medical assistant in my office just lost her job because she failed the drug test with marijuana. But frequent, heavy use is indeed a concern. I disagree with "quack" you are right to be concerned as a father and it might be wise to talk to your son.

another point to consider: some people self-medicate if they are having emotional/mental illness. With usage that frequent, just something to think about, I can't and won't speak for him.


----------



## Sid James

It has different effects on different people. I had acquaintances who where not addicted by it, I had others who where. With the new hydroponically grown stuff, which is far more potent than the stuff naturally grown, it can have very bad effects (psychosis). So that's worse than it was in the 1960's. 'Self medication' using cannabis for depression and other psychological disorders is an issue, as Sonata mentions above. Of course people do the same with alcohol.

Cannabis can be legally prescribed in Australia for those with terminal illnesses, eg. cancer and AIDS. It can be helpful to relax patients and increase their apetite.

Long term use can lead to cancer, according to the Australian Health Department.

I think if your son is doing it every day, my hunch is he's addicted. But maybe its just a phase he's going through. Dunno. I think the obvious thing is to monitor what's going on and talk openly to him about what's going on with him.


----------



## Lukecash12

I would say that I think that cannabis is something that has a variety of uses, and that we know too little about it because of both restrictions placed on testing and the dogma of it being a taboo substance, that has been perpetuated ad nauseum during a pretty sizable chunk of US history. I would tend to agree with Kopachris that there doesn't seem to be any solid link between cannabis and lung cancer. If I could just remember where it was, I could bring up a study I had found which had been funded and conducted by Kaiser (?). First, they did a survey of patients who had admitted to the use of cannabis, and had not smoked tobacco, and tallied how many of them had lung cancer. And if I remember correctly there wasn't much of a strong link at all between cannabis alone and lung cancer. But also they took note of how many of those same patients had bulbous lung, and there were more, but only by a small margin. If you know what study I'm talking about, please pull it up, because I'm at a loss right now.

Aside from that, it should be pretty widely known that cannabis is slow to addict someone physically. Yet I would say that it is psychologically addictive, and that it is habit forming. It becomes like a daily ritual, and because it also gives some euphoria and a change in mood (not to mention the pain management and stress relief), that cements it even further psychologically; one may as well be physically addicted. The results are the same.

Does it really make people lazy? Well, I think that this stereotype has been grounded only in circumstance. I've met a good many couch potatoes lounge about smoking herb. But let's look back a little bit, at the group that was indirectly responsible for the coined term "marijuana". "Marijuana" was something of a racially charged pejorative, directed at Mexican immigrants in America who smoked cannabis. Were they lazy? Ummm.... I think that in all probability they weren't, that is, if they wanted to eat... Really, it seems more to me that using cannabis is an excuse to lounge about. I know plenty of people who work over 40 hours a week, like to do things outdoors, and are penny pinching, proactively smart people, who happen to use cannabis.

My uncle Dave, for example, has been growing the stuff for thirty years now, and on top of that he works 40 hours a week plus some overtime writing software. He hires a person to tend his plants up in Redding, at his garden, where he has his scripts and his friend's scripts in plain view. There, you can find about 100 to 120, 8-14 foot plants being grown outdoors. And whoever has been hired has an 8 hour per day, manual labor job during seasons, controlling pests, watering the plants, feeding them nutrient supplements, placing worm castings (to develop an ecosystem that controls cannabis eating pests such as spider mites), grafting and tying plants when their weight or an accident breaks a branch, and topping and pruning. But that's just until they flower and bud up. Then the garden tender has to trim and process all of the plants, saving seeds, taking plants out at the root, and retilling the soil. That's a whole lot of work.

And how about my brother? He has been a plummer and pipefitter with a local union for about two and a half decades. They work all kinds of overtime, and it seems like every weekend my brother either wants me to go fishing with him, go to the park and play football, or something outside. We'll have a smoke saturday morning and not just sit down but go panning for gold all day at knight's ferry. And if it's during the fall or winter then it's a surety that we'll go together to some almond orchards that we've been going to all of our lives (right after the almond harvest), and cut and stack firewood all day. It actually even helps during these occasions because logging can be strenuous, and hard on the back.

In my own life, I've noticed that landscaping and gardening around the house is much more pleasant when I've had a smoke, and it makes various other tasks seem like a breeze as well. This is mainly because I have scoliosis, and any time that my pain is at a managable level I feel worlds more motivated to do things. Not to mention all of the sleep I lose from scoliosis and insomnia, that I usually help by merely eating a cookie (that kind of cookie) and falling asleep thirty minutes later. I still shudder to think of what our friend Polednice had to deal with in terms of pain medication, and the nausea, drowsiness and disorientation that must have come with it.

As for how often I smoke it, I would say that most times I don't actually smoke it. Probably 4-5 times a week, for the flavor. But I eat edibles and use a vaporizer on a fairly regular basis. I've yet to see it adversely affect my health, or my life in general, and have gone for months without using it simply because I wasn't at home (the missions I've been on being an example). I didn't mind it, and I wasn't constantly thinking about it. Why do I use it with such regularity? Because for some years now I've always had easy access to it, and it has been highly affordable, due to my having a few relatives and friends who grow and sell the stuff. Most times that I see a relative, I get it for free, and for those of you who buy the stuff yourselves: when a friend sells it to me, I usually pay about 20$ for an eighth, which I'm sure you would know is less than half the cost in areas in california like modesto, and a meager fraction of the cost for the stuff in places like Las Vegas, or many European countries.


----------



## clavichorder

I would say that the pattern has been "once in a while." I do not have my own stash and prefer it that way. But this past weekend, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday... And last night was a "bad trip," let me tell you... For the first time I actually felt high in a way that struck me as unmistakably different from my normal perceptions. My memory was very short term deficient. I am still suffering today from it. 

Anyway, I'm not sure I'll do it anymore. I like the altered state, it might have even been therapeutic that I was stuck in this situation and dealing with my emotional pain, and successfully bounced back and made the most of it. But I don't think I need to be high to do this. Plus, I am afraid that I am becoming stupid. My working memory can't stand any decreases...


----------



## elgar's ghost

I dabbled once upon a time - I didn't object to weed/resin turning me into a giggling loon but the drowsiness it often caused wasn't conducive if I was in company. When I was younger it was stimulants of the powdered kind that I generally went for as I was keener to party until sunrise but this was a problem in itself as I then couldn't sleep when I wanted to, and I refused to take yet something else to bring me down. I'm nearly 50 now and often feel burnt out anyway so I can't say I need anything like that anymore.


----------



## violadude

I'm high right now.


----------



## Lukecash12

Here's an idea: don't smoke the stuff! Where's the health issue criticism then? You can just ingest some food, or inhale it in it's vaporized form, without damaging your lungs at all.


----------



## Schubussy

Used to smoke most days, now I do rarely. There aren't many things I like more than a lazy afternoon with a few joints and a Debussy CD, I'm not going to lie.


----------



## EricABQ

I smoked pot regularly in college. The last time was in 1992. I stopped my last semester. 

I remember it being quite enjoyable and far less physically debilitating than an alcohol bender. The only negative experience I had was when we ate a marijuna cake and the person who baked it put way too much in. Got way too stoned and that was a pretty awful time. 

I've had a security clearance for the last 18 years so I can't smoke it at all now. However, I intend to retire in Washington state and will happily partake again when I get there.


----------



## kv466

The more I try to destroy my brain cells, the more **** I find stored up there! 

So don't worry about killing those. The short term memory is 100% true but those things (unless you're late and need your keys) are rarely important enough to remember anyway. As far as the actual smoke, that can begin to get bad after 20 years or so. Vaporize.


----------



## Ukko

Lukecash12 said:


> Here's an idea: don't smoke the stuff! Where's the health issue criticism then? You can just ingest some food, or inhale it in it's vaporized form, without damaging your lungs at all.


I've been 'tossing that out' (the use of pot butter) to smoking friends for some time now. It has no effect on them. Non-smoking 'potential users' might buy the story, but I don't know any of those.


----------



## Crudblud

The thing with smoking is that (in my experience) you become a habitual smoker, so alternatives may have less appeal.


----------



## Guest

I have never tried marijuana, or any other such thing, nor have I ever been intoxicated in any way. I don't know what the long term effects of marijuana are, other than the potential for ruining your career if you are caught in a random drug test. I don't understand the need to "escape" from life and its problems. I am sure that I am mis-characterizing pot use, but it just doesn't make sense to me. Like the original poster, I would worry if my child were using pot. I would worry that they were using it as an alternative to facing up to and overcoming problems in their life. I would worry that they felt they needed some artificial method to find enjoyment in life, worried that they could not learn normal coping mechanisms. I would worry that they were engaging in something illegal.

This chart, from a study in the British Journal Lancet, shows the relative addictiveness and health risks of cannabis as compared to other drugs. The harm level is fairly low, and it is indeed lower in addictiveness than alcohol and tobacco, but on about the same level as amphetamines.


----------



## Ravndal

Used to do it a lot as a teenager. Didnt harm me. It actually opened my ears for music and art. Now i do it once in a while (once a week at top). Cant do it as much as i want, because it affects my piano study.


----------



## Schubussy

DrMike said:


> I don't understand the need to "escape" from life and its problems.


I really don't think many people use it this way. I certainly don't, it's just enjoyable and that doesn't mean you can't find enjoyment elsewhere.


----------



## neoshredder




----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*I'd probably respond more intelligently...*

... if I knew more about your son---


Agatha said:


> recently i discovered that my son (19 years old) smokes pot almost every day.
> he says that it is better to smoke pot than to xloke cigarttes
> do you agree? i am having a realy hard time coping with this ...


Does your son live with you?
Is he a student/student-worker, or is he a full-time worker?
If he's not a full-time worker, how does he fund daily pot consumption?
Where does he blaze?
If he lives at home, does he keep his stash on your premises?
If he does, how do you feel about your abode being used as a storage-space for illegal substances?

If he's over eighteen, living away from home, earning his own money, and firing it up, that's one thing. However, if he's doing it under the roof that you provide, he has an obligation and duty to consider your perspective on this matter, independent of whatever mitigating comparisons one might be tempted to draw between pot and cigarettes... or alcohol... or anything else.


----------



## PetrB

Kopachris said:


> While cannabis smoke does contain some of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke (which you'll get by burning just about any organic material), studies have shown no link between smoking pot and getting cancer, unlike studies of tobacco smoking: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2006/05/23-03.html


One average skinny joint contains three times the tar as the stronger cigarettes on the market. (Smoke in your lungs is smoke in your lungs.)
The liver is still involved -- people with liver damage are advised not to smoke pot as well as not take alcohol.

Pot is nowhere near as deleterious as alcohol, including the swath of physical ills, or the horrid affect upon others who are kith, kin, or coworkers of the alcoholic.

Again I remind you, in a society where so many people drink one or more alcoholic beverages per day, there is little argument against when trying to convince someone that a small bowl or joint of Marijuana is anything much worse.

I'm also of that generation coming to age in the late sixties. I've known people who have done and still smoke on a very regular basis and are successful in their work, relationships and meet their obligations... I might add those who do tend to smoke habitually do not drink much or at all... it is 'their alcohol' to them.

For some, it is the preferred drug rather than alcohol: _*Alcohol, so many people do not want to admit, is also a drug, and is taken daily by millions -- and the world has continued to lurch along.*_


----------



## Stargazer

I've never smoked, and never will. It affects your brain and has been shown to cause psychosis in some cases. Not to mention, I have noticed a huge change in all of my friends who have smoked it...it's like they became different people after they started, and seemed to lose much of their motivation in life. And that's not even mentioning the harm it can cause to your body!


----------



## clavichorder

So, I greatly enjoy the enhanced introspection, appreciation of my basic sensory perceptions, a compulsion to learn, and even the limit of short term memory that allows your character to build in other ways, that goes with weed, even with all of its unpleasant revelations, but I am wondering if I should try to learn to meditate instead. I would much prefer to experience this without the aid of anything. 

Also, maybe we're all a little deluded about it too. Maybe there is something of "Idiocracy" happening with the assistance of weed. Other factors too of course, television, enhanced material comfort, ect...

Man, I just want to get out in the woods for a while, a good while. And I may just do that. Still, something like meditation would be nice to be able to do.

Also, I don't know if I could resign on smoking weed socially. Its just too fun to be high around others. More interesting thoughts and perceptions can happen when alone sometimes, but I want to not need weed for such things.


----------



## neoshredder

I never liked it. It just doesn't work for me I guess or I got some cheap form of it. Alcohol is my preferred drug.


----------



## Guest

If smoking weed impairs judgment and short term memory, how do people know that it is expanding their minds? Do they just think it does at the time?

And, with the exception of those who are using pot in places where it is legal, is there not any concern that, regardless of what effect it is having on your long-term health, you are engaging in illegal activity? And where are you obtaining the pot? Are you supporting some murderous drug cartel in Mexico that slaughters innocents to produce your recreational habit? Just as many who bought alcohol during Prohibition lined the wallets and supported the existence of the mafia?


----------



## kv466

Clavi, you gotta hit me up when you're in town!

For a lot of us, it is very ceremonial as well. I am of Inca blood and I know for a fact that my body and mind are more receptive to natural highs rather than processed ones such as alcohol. (and let's not forget, folks, two other major DRUGS are nicotine and caffeine) Sometimes I tend to think, "oh, man, I got no nuggets for tonight's gig" as if it were as important as having strings or a PA. It was recently refreshing when I took a couple of weeks off on my transatlantic cruise and played the entire cruise with the blues band completely sober. 

Actually, on a couple of occasions that I had drank on shore and had a strong buzz (which I like to keep going!), I noticed I didn't have as much fun playing guitar and definitely NO fun playing drums. Which is strange because I'll take in a few pints every gig at home. It's a combination of not knowing those players and feeling so comfortable with the players I play with on a regular basis that you communally partake with them before and during breaks. 

All in all, and this is coming from someone who loves to satisfy the hungry beast: Nothing can beat the natural high that the human brain can produce all by itself.


Doc, serious? lol Murderous Mexican cartels? I know for a fact that the only wallets I'm lining are those of the fine American growers of Northern California! Bog Bless Them.


----------



## neoshredder

Yeah how natural is it to put a plant on fire and breathing the smoke.


----------



## Ukko

There is nothing in the US Constitution about the evils of pot. The first step toward making possession of it federally illegal was made around 1908, a back door maneuver. Along the NY-Miami metro corridor, I don't know where the majority of the pot comes from. The non-homegrown stuff in northern New England mostly comes from Canada, and most of that enters the aforementioned corridor via New York. A lot of the booze came in through Canada during Prohibition, too. Bad influences, those Canadians.


----------



## kv466

neoshredder said:


> Yeah how natural is it to put a plant on fire and breathing the smoke.


Well, considering the action goes back as far as 5000bc, I'd say _quite_ natural.


----------



## Guest

kv466 said:


> Clavi, you gotta hit me up when you're in town!
> 
> For a lot of us, it is very ceremonial as well. I am of Inca blood and I know for a fact that my body and mind are more receptive to natural highs rather than processed ones such as alcohol. (and let's not forget, folks, two other major DRUGS are nicotine and caffeine) Sometimes I tend to think, "oh, man, I got no nuggets for tonight's gig" as if it were as important as having strings or a PA. It was recently refreshing when I took a couple of weeks off on my transatlantic cruise and played the entire cruise with the blues band completely sober.
> 
> Actually, on a couple of occasions that I had drank on shore and had a strong buzz (which I like to keep going!), I noticed I didn't have as much fun playing guitar and definitely NO fun playing drums. Which is strange because I'll take in a few pints every gig at home. It's a combination of not knowing those players and feeling so comfortable with the players I play with on a regular basis that you communally partake with them before and during breaks.
> 
> All in all, and this is coming from someone who loves to satisfy the hungry beast: Nothing can beat the natural high that the human brain can produce all by itself.
> 
> Doc, serious? lol Murderous Mexican cartels? I know for a fact that the only wallets I'm lining are those of the fine American growers of Northern California! Bog Bless Them.


And, pray tell, how does that fine Californian weed make its way to Hialeah, FL? Or do you only purchase directly and consume on the spot? While you may be purchasing the more expensive pot grown in California, the best evidence we have suggests that anywhere from 60-80% of the pot sold in the U.S. comes from Mexico, which means the drug cartels. It is cheaper, and thus more readily accessible. Is everybody as conscientious as you?


----------



## Guest

kv466 said:


> Well, considering the action goes back as far as 5000bc, I'd say _quite_ natural.


Because a human behavior has existed for a long time doesn't make it natural. 7000 years is a blink of an eye on an evolutionary scale.

It is highly unnatural, and the body has mechanisms to try and counteract it. The violent coughing upon first smoking? That is the body attempting to rid itself of something it senses as harmful - smoke. Sure, it subsides over time, because you have desensitized the body to it - but that is not a good thing. You don't want to impair the body's natural defenses. Hence people who smoke are more prone to respiratory infections, not only because of the damage done to their respiratory system by inhaling smoke, but also because it has become desensitized to insults, and does not operate correctly to expel harmful things. In the case of marijuana, I have heard that these effects may even be worse than smoking tobacco, as people tend to hold the marijuana smoke in their lungs much longer than they do with tobacco smoke.

Finally, while marijuana may not be as addictive as other drugs, the fact is that it can be habit-forming, so to go around and say it isn't does no service to those who may be more prone to addiction. So what if it is not as addictive as alcohol. The fact is that it can be addictive.


----------



## kv466

DrMike said:


> And, pray tell, how does that fine Californian weed make its way to Hialeah, FL? Or do you only purchase directly and consume on the spot? While you may be purchasing the more expensive pot grown in California, the best evidence we have suggests that anywhere from 60-80% of the pot sold in the U.S. comes from Mexico, which means the drug cartels. It is cheaper, and thus more readily accessible. Is everybody as conscientious as you?


Doc, if you wanna get into destroying ourselves and truly being _conscientious_ then let's take a walk up and down the aisles of our supermarkets. Who's pocket's are being lined then? Who's killing who? Let's take a closer look at the labels of the **** we're consuming. Then there are the drug companies and the well-lined doctors out there prescribing countless amounts of poison to the masses. Oh,...but it's okay because they went to school and have a fancy prescription pad? Come on...if we're gonna get conscientious...let's_ really _ get conscientious!


----------



## Guest

kv466 said:


> Doc, if you wanna get into destroying ourselves and truly being _conscientious_ then let's take a walk up and down the aisles of our supermarkets. Who's pocket's are being lined then? Who's killing who? Let's take a closer look at the labels of the **** we're consuming. Then there are the drug companies and the well-lined doctors out there prescribing countless amounts of poison to the masses. Oh,...but it's okay because they went to school and have a fancy prescription pad? Come on...if we're gonna get conscientious...let's_ really _ get conscientious!


Being a person who is pretty damn happy with the drug companies helping improve his quality of life (I am a diabetic and take 6 different medications/day), I find it odd that you are drawing some kind of moral equivalency between drug companies and food producers with drug cartels. How does that work? Tell me - how many people were gunned down last year by drug companies to support their providing diabetes medications, cholesterol lowering drugs, cancer therapeutics, antiviral drugs, vaccinations, and other medications? I have done some work for drug companies, and I can tell you that an automatic gun was not one of the tools of my trade.

Here is the difference, as well - take away medications produced by drug companies, or food produced by food companies, and more people will die. Take away the trafficking of marijuana produced by drug cartels, and less people will die.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I was talking to a guy about this (or he was talking to me), and he was accusing me of being ignorant about pot and thinking it worse than it really was. I told him I was a musician and I didn't want to impair my mind or my breathing. His excuse was that actually pot opens the mind to creativity, and increases your lung capacity. PSHHH!! I don't believe that will happen for me. I believe I will lose my flute-playing skills both ways. I definitely don't want to smoke anything, especially if I come to be dependent on it. Pot may not be physically addictive... but what if I start thinking that I only will be able to play well _with _pot in my system, eh? It's an emotional/psychological addiction then, right? I don't want to subject myself to that.


----------



## kv466

DrMike said:


> I have done some work for drug companies, and I can tell you that an automatic gun was not one of the tools of my trade.


The weapons used by your industry and the food industry are far worse than any gun for they are hidden with lies and false promises and deception. This is the last I'll respond to you about this as it will go nowhere. And I wasn't talking about Metformin, Glipzide or Levemir or Novolog. I'm talking about the mind meds and the highly addictive pain meds and,...you know,...you're just never going to get it. If ignorance is bliss then wipe the smile off my face.


----------



## violadude

All I know is that weed makes me relaxed and feel good about life and feel more confident, while alcohol makes me feel stupid and extremely sick afterward and it's damaging to my kidneys.


----------



## neoshredder

And all I know is weed makes me feel stupid and my lungs are on fire. Alcohol, however makes me real social and want to rock out.  Oh yeah and no drug dealers involved with alcohol.


----------



## neoshredder

Btw I think it might be more damaging to drink alcohol when THC is still in your system. So might be best to pick and choose your poison and don't mix.


----------



## Guest

kv466 said:


> The weapons used by your industry and the food industry are far worse than any gun for they are hidden with lies and false promises and deception. This is the last I'll respond to you about this as it will go nowhere. And I wasn't talking about Metformin, Glipzide or Levemir or Novolog. I'm talking about the mind meds and the highly addictive pain meds and,...you know,...you're just never going to get it. If ignorance is bliss then wipe the smile off my face.


You'll forgive me if it wasn't readily apparent that you were talking about mind medications and highly addictive pain medications - you did mention walking up and down the aisles of supermarkets, and unless the supermarkets are much different there in Florida than they are here in Alabama, I have never seen such things in a supermarket.

I agree that some of those more dangerous medications are perhaps dispensed too freely. But there is a place for their responsible use. I don't see it for marijuana. Any drug or medication has its inherent risks, and doctors should be very judicious in what they prescribe. I have taken diabetic medicines that greatly increase my risk of heart disease. However, if I don't control my diabetes, my risk of heart disease is even higher than the risk from taking the drug. So a judgment call is made, and I take the drug. With the strong, potentially habit-forming pain medications, the trade-off is either prescribing for the individual the potentially habit-forming pain medication or have the person suffer from debilitating pain. Either way, the quality of life is greatly reduced, but the risk from the addictive qualities of the drug are deemed to be less than the risks from the debilitating pain. There is no magic drug or medication that has no downside. And doctors are not allowed to prescribe those medications for people to have more meaningful social interactions or more pleasant music listening experiences. As to the "lies and false promises and deception" used by my "industry," well, you are right. Not much else need be said. People here can decide for themselves how they feel about these things and whether they think that the quality of their life is in general better or worse due to the food and drug industry. Again, though, a major difference is this - eliminate the food and drug industry, and deaths would increase. Eliminate the drug cartels, and deaths would decrease.

If you want to talk about the potential health benefits, then that is a subject that has some merit. The problem is that plain marijuana is not a very good drug - first of all, the method of delivery most used (inhalation of smoke) carries its own risks. Second of all, there are too many other variables in the plant itself to effectively measure its benefits. Thirdly, there is no way to effectively manage dose using the raw product. As a result, drugs have actually been developed utilizing the active component of marijuana that has the potential health benefits, and that is a much better way of using it, as opposed to simply smoking a joint.


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> All I know is that weed makes me relaxed and feel good about life and feel more confident, while alcohol makes me feel stupid and extremely sick afterward and it's damaging to my kidneys.


Some studies have shown that people who smoke marijuana regularly are more prone to acute respiratory infections than are those who smoke tobacco - but either way, smoking both increases the risk of respiratory infection.

Oh, and alcohol also is VERY bad for the liver - it is the number one cause of cirrhosis.


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> Btw I think it might be more damaging to drink alcohol when THC is still in your system. So might be best to pick and choose your poison and don't mix.


Yes, I think I have read that the combination of alcohol and THC makes you much more intoxicated than taking either alone.


----------



## emiellucifuge

DrMike said:


> And, pray tell, how does that fine Californian weed make its way to Hialeah, FL? Or do you only purchase directly and consume on the spot? While you may be purchasing the more expensive pot grown in California, the best evidence we have suggests that anywhere from 60-80% of the pot sold in the U.S. comes from Mexico, which means the drug cartels. It is cheaper, and thus more readily accessible. Is everybody as conscientious as you?


Assuming that the graph you posted earlier is correct - and that Cannabis is not more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, shouldn't the above be an argument for the legalisation of it?


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> Assuming that the graph you posted earlier is correct - and that Cannabis is not more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, shouldn't the above be an argument for the legalisation of it?


That is a totally different argument. I agree that it seems ridiculous that alcohol and tobacco are legal, while pot isn't. It isn't logically coherent. I suspect that it is simply due to the fact that alcohol and tobacco become completely entrenched in our society before efforts began to be made to control such substances, and so there was just no practical way to ban them. Marijuana, though, is relatively new on the scene.

Personally, I have no use for any of them. Were it left up to me - say, if a ballot measure comes up to legalize it, then I would probably vote against it. But I will not be too worked up if it were to be legalized. I would encourage my child not to use it, just as I would encourage my child to not use alcohol or tobacco.


----------



## EricABQ

Legalizing pot would shut down the illegal Mexican pot importers. I agree that it is pretty unethical to purchase pot imported form Mexico, but the solution to that is to legalize it.

That's my libertarian side coming out. Another way my libertarian side comes out is that if we do legalize it, I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for addict's treatments. If you choose to smoke it, solve your drug problem yourself if you can't handle it.


----------



## Guest

EricABQ said:


> Legalizing pot would shut down the illegal Mexican pot importers. I agree that it is pretty unethical to purchase pot imported form Mexico, but the solution to that is to legalize it.
> 
> That's my libertarian side coming out. Another way my libertarian side comes out is that if we do legalize it, I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for addict's treatments. If you choose to smoke it, solve your drug problem yourself if you can't handle it.


Unfortunately, you are more likely to get the one and not the other. I agree, though. With any intoxicating substances, I think that, if they are going to be legalized, society should not be held accountable for the consequences. I personally think that penalties for driving while intoxicated should be more severe.

Legalizing pot, though, wouldn't shut down Mexican drug cartels - marijuana isn't the only drug they supply. And if it isn't drugs, they will find something else. The end of prohibition didn't end the mafia - they just moved into other markets.


----------



## Head_case

Agatha said:


> - everyday
> - once a week
> - once in a while
> 
> recently i discovered that my son (19 years old) smokes pot almost every day.
> he says that it is better to smoke pot than to xloke cigarttes
> do you agree? i am having a realy hard time coping with this ...


19 year olds know best, huh?! 

I guess he's not going to listen to his old man and instead, would rather listen to his drug dealer or his pot smoking friends who will try and convince him with every rationalisation under the sun e.g.

1. It feels good, so do it
2. Tobacco and alcohol are legal
3. He's enjoying it and getting on with his life

He had better be a cocksure young man to refute the evidence and throw away his brain with facile rationalisations.

Quick google search for authoritative evidence of damage to the brain from cannabis use:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/expertadvice/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabis.aspx



> Is there such a thing as 'cannabis psychosis'?
> 
> Recent research in Denmark suggests that yes, there is. It is a short-lived psychotic disorder that seems to be brought on by cannabis use but which subsides fairly quickly once the individual has stopped using it. It's quite unusual though - in the whole of Denmark they found only around 100 new cases per year.
> 
> However, they also found that:
> 
> * Three quarters had a different psychotic disorder diagnosed within the next year.
> * Nearly half still had a psychotic disorder 3 years later.
> 
> So, it also seems probable that nearly half of those diagnosed as having cannabis psychosis are actually showing the first signs of a more long-lasting psychotic disorder, such as schizophrenia. It may be this group of people who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of cannabis, and so should probably avoid it in the future.
> 
> Is cannabis addictive?
> 
> It has some of the features of addictive drugs such as:
> 
> * tolerance - having to take more and more to get the same effect
> * withdrawal symptoms. These have been shown in heavy users and include:
> o craving
> o decreased appetite
> o sleep difficulty
> o weight loss
> o aggression and/or anger
> o irritability
> o restlessness
> o strange dreams. .
> 
> These symptoms of withdrawal produce about the same amount of discomfort as withdrawing from tobacco.
> 
> For regular, long-term users:
> 
> * 3 out of 4 experience cravings;
> * half become irritable;
> * 7 out of 10 switch to tobacco in an attempt to stay off cannabis.
> 
> The irritability, anxiety and problems with sleeping usually appear 10 hours after the last joint, and peak at around one week after the last use of the drug.
> 
> Compulsive use
> 
> The user feels they have to have it and spends much of their life seeking, buying and using it. They cannot stop even when other important parts of their life (family, school, work) suffer.
> 
> You are most likely to become dependent on cannabis if you use it every day.
> 
> What about skunk and other stronger varieties?
> 
> The amount of the main psycho-active ingredient, THC, that you get in herbal cannabis varies hugely from as low as 1% up to 15%. The newer strains, including skunk, can have up to 20%. The newer varieties are, on the whole, two or three times stronger than those that were available 30 years ago. It works more quickly, and can produce hallucinations with profound relaxation and elation - along with nervousness, anxiety attacks, projectile vomiting and a strong desire to eat. They may be used by some as a substitute for Ecstasy or LSD.
> 
> Legally, these strains remain classified Class B drugs. While there is little research so far, it is likely that these stronger strains carry a higher risk of causing mental illness. A major study currently underway, has already reported problems with concentration and short-term memory in users of stronger types of cannabis.


http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/factsheets/article/cannabis-and-mental-health



> The link between the use of cannabis and mental health problems is an issue that receives a great deal of attention in the research and general media. Although severe illnesses such as schizophrenia have received a large portion of this attention, there is also debate about whether the use of cannabis can lead to more common psychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety.
> 
> There have been a number of studies that have explored the link between cannabis use and mental health symptoms. Strong associations are often found but this is not the same as a causal link (i.e. one causes the other).
> 
> Psychoses refers to a group of mental illnesses where people experience difficulty in distinguishing what is real and what is not real. Someone suffering from a psychosis might hear voices or see/taste/smell things that are not really there (hallucinations), or have beliefs that are not true (delusions). Hallucinations and delusions are usually accompanied by confused thinking and speech, making it difficult for other people to understand the person and for the person to function in life. Schizophrenia is the best known of the group and is one type of psychosis.
> 
> There have been reports of people experiencing psychotic symptoms after smoking a lot of cannabis or more cannabis than they are used to. This is called drug-induced psychosis. It is uncommon and the symptoms, although frightening at the time, go away when cannabis use is stopped.


There's plenty more. As a parent, even if he is 19years old, the main challenge you'll face is trying to address, how to deal with the emptiness in his life which he will discover, if he leaves behind smoking cannabis; his cannabis smoking mates, and having to deal with the emotions of growing up after getting so used to habitually smoking cannabis, without having cannabis.

He sounds like he needs professional help, although any charity worker dealing with young people whose lives are steeped in drug and alcohol dependency will tell you, that it is only as good as their motivation to want to stop.


----------



## Head_case

In the BBC News today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-21250576

This one is a sad Ecstasy/Amphetamine related drugs overdose death of a 28 year old man. Drug dealer got what he deserved.


----------



## Head_case

Oh dear. It's not looking good.

If this 19year old cannabis smoker is studying - here's some of the research from the links above:

Education and learning


> There have also been suggestions that cannabis may interfere with a person's capacity to:
> 
> * concentrate
> * organise information
> * use information
> 
> This effect seems to last several weeks after use, which can cause particular problems for students.





> However, a large study in New Zealand followed up 1265 children for 25 years. It found that cannabis use in adolescence was linked to poor school performance, but that there was no direct connection between the two. It looked as though it was simply because cannabis use encouraged a way of life that didn't help with schoolwork.


Zhit. Never get into a car driven by a cannabis driver unless you want to be dead:

What about driving?



> In New Zealand, researchers found that those who smoked regularly, and had smoked before driving, were more likely to be injured in a car crash. A recent study in France looked at over 10,000 drivers who were involved in fatal car crashes. Even when the influence of alcohol was taken into account, cannabis users were more than twice as likely to be the cause of a fatal crash than to be one of the victims. So - perhaps most of us would also not want to be driven by somebody who had smoked cannabis in the last day or so.


I presume the fatalies in the UK would be worse, since we drive the wrong way compared to New Zealand 



> Risk of Depression with cannabis users:
> 
> * Depression
> 
> A study following 1600 Australian school-children, aged 14 to 15 for seven years, found that while children who use cannabis regularly have a significantly higher risk of depression, the opposite was not the case - children who already suffered from depression were not more likely than anyone else to use cannabis. However, adolescents who used cannabis daily were five times more likely to develop depression and anxiety in later life.


Bad news for cannabis defenders. You'd be better off saving your money and buying the complete box set of Wagner's operas :lol:


----------



## PetrB

DrMike said:


> I have never tried marijuana, or any other such thing, nor have I ever been intoxicated in any way. I don't know what the long term effects of marijuana are, other than the potential for ruining your career if you are caught in a random drug test. I don't understand the need to "escape" from life and its problems. I am sure that I am mis-characterizing pot use, but it just doesn't make sense to me. Like the original poster, I would worry if my child were using pot. I would worry that they were using it as an alternative to facing up to and overcoming problems in their life. I would worry that they felt they needed some artificial method to find enjoyment in life, worried that they could not learn normal coping mechanisms. I would worry that they were engaging in something illegal.
> 
> This chart, from a study in the British Journal Lancet, shows the relative addictiveness and health risks of cannabis as compared to other drugs. The harm level is fairly low, and it is indeed lower in addictiveness than alcohol and tobacco, but on about the same level as amphetamines.
> View attachment 12412


The chart is a load of codswollop! It makes NO DISTINCTION between the pscyhologically addictive and the clinical, physically addictive. A few cigarettes a day, say three, and within several days your brain and body have a screaming chemical dependence which must be met.... That is a TRUE ADDICTION. Heroine is much slower to become an addiction with users than nicotine.

The problem with such an 'attitude' hidden within the chart is not making any level of discernment, though it _appears_ to do so because it is "A Chart of Scientific Findings." The worst part of this sort of presentation is in vilifying all such substances, rather than giving out clearer advisory or warning as to 'which works how and what one needs to look out for.'

Government funded, do ya think? Rolling over to having alcohol legal is already 'wrong' as per that chart's import: alcohol use is responsible for more physical and emotional damage, and economic loss (in the workplace, affecting businesses) then the rest of those substances combined.


----------



## Rapide

When I listen to some Merzbow, pot comes in perfectly ....... just joking.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I think the stuff smells bad


----------



## clavichorder

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I think the stuff smells bad


Some claim it smells like skunk to them.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> The chart is a load of codswollop! It makes NO DISTINCTION between the pscyhologically addictive and the clinical, physically addictive. A few cigarettes a day, say three, and within several days your brain and body have a screaming chemical dependence which must be met.... That is a TRUE ADDICTION. Heroine is much slower to become an addiction with users than nicotine.
> 
> The problem with such an 'attitude' hidden within the chart is not making any level of discernment, though it _appears_ to do so because it is "A Chart of Scientific Findings." The worst part of this sort of presentation is in vilifying all such substances, rather than giving out clearer advisory or warning as to 'which works how and what one needs to look out for.'
> 
> Government funded, do ya think? Rolling over to having alcohol legal is already 'wrong' as per that chart's import: alcohol use is responsible for more physical and emotional damage, and economic loss (in the workplace, affecting businesses) then the rest of those substances combined.


Perhaps those were not the parameters measured in the study. I don't understand what is wrong with pointing out the risks of all these substances. I don't know whether your information is more accurate than the study, but clearly both nicotine and heroin are highly addictive.


----------



## PetrB

DrMike said:


> Perhaps those were not the parameters measured in the study. I don't understand what is wrong with pointing out the risks of all these substances. I don't know whether your information is more accurate than the study, but clearly both nicotine and heroin are highly addictive.


It is good to point out risks with ingesting any of those substances, but knowing that a good handful are only psychologically addictive, which many a young person already knows, does nothing to help get the word out. The chart, one could say, is 'neutral.'

You can bet it might be shown in a 'don't do drugs' campaign, and then, the young, especially, disregard the valid information there, thinking the way it is presented 'not factual' and mere 'adult scare tactics.'

The lumping in with the most highly physically addictive (tobacco) with the others, (heroine and alcohol are first psychologically addictive -- only after a longer period of use does coming off of them become 'addiction') is the worst part, and it is so very often, stated or implied sub-textual, present in public service announcements re: all drugs.


----------



## Agatha

Thank you all guys, I am reading and digesting all your opinions and advices.


quack said:


> That said you are possibly doing more damage to your health due to stress and worry about this issue than your son is doing to his own health smoking.


Totaly agree with this one..


----------



## elgar's ghost

I'm reminded of a quote from a rock music journo the 70s: 'If marijuana doesn't cause extensive brain damage how come so many people listen to Hawkwind?'


----------



## Cnote11

clavichorder said:


> Some claim it smells like skunk to them.


Whenever I get a whiff of it, I get a headache that takes the wind out of me and I become disoriented for a moment and sometimes verge on collapsing. I'm not quite sure why that is... but it has a strong effect on me. Luckily I'm never around the stuff.


----------



## violadude

The one thing that I don't like about pot for me is that I get sorta irritable when the high starts to wear off and that can be kind of annoying, especially when I'm in public.


----------



## samurai

Also, then one has to deal with the "munchies" and possible headaches, if memory serves me correctly.


----------



## neoshredder

How about this. Take a month off weed. Then try alcohol again in a smaller dosage. You might like Alcohol then.


----------



## deggial

used to (2-3 times a week), haven't in about a decade for a variety of reasons. Was fun while it lasted, with the main downside of making me a bit "slow", but that could've just been overindulgence on my part. It depends on the person, like everything else. My advice is (as with any mind altering substance), if you're got any mental health issues try not to. I've witnessed some horrifying reactions.


----------



## neoshredder

deggial said:


> used to (2-3 times a week), haven't in about a decade for a variety of reasons. Was fun while it lasted, with the main downside of making me a bit "slow", but that could've just been overindulgence on my part. It depends on the person, like everything else. My advice is (as with any mind altering substance), if you're got any mental health issues try not to. I've witnessed some horrifying reactions.


That's why I think alcohol is less of a risk. Yes it is a rougher on the body but weed is much worse to your mind. And your mind is quite important.


----------



## deggial

neoshredder said:


> And your mind is quite important.


*** opposed to your body  kidding.


----------



## deggial

^ that's what I get for trying to be a smart... ***


----------



## kv466

Shredder, you have got to stop watching those stoner movies and believing that is how people really behave while on THC. And if you're getting your info from actual folks around you then the company you are keeping may be quite questionable. As are your ideas about alcohol.


----------



## neoshredder

Except I had first hand experience with weed. And I felt stupid while using it. It's stupid to be paranoid and forget what you were doing (short term memory loss). I do feel like it hurt me long term as well but hard to prove that. The main reason I quit though was lungs were on fire. I never smoked cigarettes. It was a shock to start smoking period.


----------



## kv466

Well, I'm glad you do what's best for you, then. But be careful with that booze, too!


----------



## millionrainbows

What do you think of pot? How often do you smoke?
- everyday
- once a week
- once in a while
Have you ever been treated for an emotional or mental disorder?
- yes
- no
- can't remember
What do you plan to do with this firearm?
- recreation
- hunting
- target range practice
- vengeance

Thank you for answering this questionnaire. This forum, as well as any other
"digital footprints" you may leave, will be searched for your IP address
as part of our routine background scan. 

Thank you,
The FBI


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> That's why I think alcohol is less of a risk. Yes it is a rougher on the body but weed is much worse to your mind. And your mind is quite important.


Small amounts of alcohol, certainly, have been shown to have some beneficial health effects. The problem with alcohol, though, is the dangers of over-consumption - not only the direct damage done to the body itself (the liver damage I mentioned, among other things). But then there are the social problems resulting from excessive alcohol consumption - not the least of which being alcohol-related traffic accidents and fatalities. I don't know that there are similar findings for marijuana use.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> The chart is a load of codswollop! It makes NO DISTINCTION between the pscyhologically addictive and the clinical, physically addictive. A few cigarettes a day, say three, and within several days your brain and body have a screaming chemical dependence which must be met.... That is a TRUE ADDICTION. Heroine is much slower to become an addiction with users than nicotine.


I looking into the subject more, your response confuses me even more. By all accounts that I could find, your example of heroin vs. nicotine - numerous studies show that the two are similar in their addictiveness. A large part of this, I'm sure, is due to the fact that they work in very similar ways on neurotransmitters.

Furthermore, the chart plots dependence, and not addictiveness. I'm not an expert in the field, so I don't know the exact distinction between the two, but being in another scientific field, I know that using the correct word in publications is critical, and I can only assume that if they said dependence rather than addictiveness, there was a reason for it. There is a distinction between physical addiction and the more general phrase "addiction" that gets thrown around. For example, some people claim that TV can be addictive, or sugar can be addictive. But they have actually done studies. People are hooked up to i.v. lines attached to levers that will deliver a substance to their bloodstream. They don't know what the levers will deliver to them. Substances like glucose don't seem to be addictive as individuals are no more likely to pull the lever that delivers glucose than the lever that delivers saline. However, the levers for heroin and nicotine are pulled much more frequently. So there is evidence for some of these drugs. I don't know how many different drugs have been tested in such a way.

Finally, what difference does it make? Is a psychological addiction any more or less desirable than a clinical, physical addiction? Is it good to be addicted in any kind of way? Addictive behavior, in any form, is generally not a good thing.


----------



## millionrainbows

...but seriously, folks _(and field agents),_ I no longer smoke the stuff. You know, marijuana is considered to be a part of the _psychotropic_ (or psychedelic) family of drugs (not narcotics like opium or heroin).

psychotropic |ˌsīkəˈtrōpik; -ˈträpik|
adjective
relating to or denoting drugs that affect a person's mental state

I noticed that it made me aware of whatever "mental postures" I was in, and it caused me to see my own posturing, and others' mental posturing, and it seemed ridiculous. A classic case of "transcending your own ego," and becoming aware, like a goldfish momentarily jumping up out of its bowl of water, of its own self-made mental environment, yet still constructed at the behest of outside influences of social pressures, public environments, and strange, dehumanizing mandates and directives from parents, schools, television, etc.

As I said, after smoking (or eating brownies or cookies made with marijuana, a perfect way to mask the odor), I noticed that it made me aware of whatever "mental postures" I was in, and caused me to see my own posturing, and others' mental posturing, seem ridiculous.

Which it no doubt was, and still is. Many is the time, on Sundays, when I would laugh out loud watching tap-dancing xylophone players, bizarrely made-up female singers, and clean-cut singing groups on The Lawrence Welk Show, then grooving-out to Myron Floren's fantastic accordion playing.

There was a time I used it, but the world was quite different then.

I quit when I realized it took away my newly-needed "edge" of aggression, now desperately needed to stay as aggressive as possible to "keep up" with the rest of American society, which had slowly morphed into a bunch of pushy, mean-spirited yuppies and right-wing, angry soldiers in Reagan's new "War on Drugs."

They take everything so seriously now! They want to have "perfect lives" and raise "perfect children." 
No hippies, no drop-outs, no sub-cultures; just healthy, straight, neatly-groomed, efficient, and productive workers. Drugs hurt profits! Mandatory workplace drug testing, blah, blah, as the Bill of Rights slowly wastes away, little by little...

Here is a lighter perspective, for further study of this crucial, pressing issue:









Have a nice life! Have fun in the twenty-first century, and "stay cool" as the tide rises!

:lol::tiphat:


----------



## Ukko

millionrainbows said:


> [...]
> Here is a lighter perspective, for further study of this crucial, pressing issue:
> 
> View attachment 12440
> 
> 
> Have a nice life! Have fun in the twenty-first century, and "stay cool" as the tide rises!
> 
> :lol::tiphat:


I used to read Harlan Ellison's SF stories, back in the day.


----------



## millionrainbows

DrMike said:


> ...your example of *heroin vs. nicotine - numerous studies show that the two are similar in their addictiveness.* A large part of this, I'm sure, is due to the fact that they work in very similar ways on neurotransmitters....Furthermore, the chart plots dependence, and not addictiveness. But they have actually done studies. People are hooked up to i.v. lines attached to levers that will deliver a substance to their bloodstream...the levers for *heroin and nicotine* are pulled much more frequently...Finally, what difference does it make? Is a psychological addiction any more or less desirable than a clinical, physical addiction? Is it good to be addicted in any kind of way? Addictive behavior, in any form, is generally not a good thing.


You're comparing cigarettes and cigars with _*heroin? *_What's wrong with this picture? Nothing, it's a good example of the brainwashing effects of the "War on Drugs," social engineering, early indoctrination...

I mean, we all understand that cigarettes are highly addictive (I haven't had a cigar in months), but "addiction" to marijuana is bogus. I can see how younger kids might get "trapped" in a crowd or lifestyle that does it for rebellion, etc, but *marijuana is not physically addictive like cigarettes or heroin.*


----------



## millionrainbows

Hilltroll72 said:


> I used to read Harlan Ellison's SF stories, back in the day.


You mean the "good old days" when imagination was valued?


----------



## Alydon

I only tried pot once whilst listening to Pink Floyd's, Dark Side of the Moon - it was a pleasant experience but in the morning I went into work and couldn't remember anyone's name, so I stuck to booze from then on.


----------



## millionrainbows

Alydon said:


> I only tried pot once whilst listening to Pink Floyd's, Dark Side of the Moon - it was a pleasant experience but in the morning I went into work and couldn't remember anyone's name, so I stuck to booze from then on.


...and how's that working for you?


----------



## Alydon

It worked too well so now I don't drink - maybe I should have continued with the weed.


----------



## millionrainbows

millionrainbows said:


> ...and how's that working for you?





Alydon said:


> It worked too well so now I don't drink - maybe I should have continued with the weed.


I got that phrase from Dr. Phil. You can't slip anything by that guy...:lol:


----------



## neoshredder

Alydon said:


> It worked too well so now I don't drink - maybe I should have continued with the weed.


I see what you mean. Alcohol is too enjoyable.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think people use alcohol because it lowers inhibitions and stimulates talking. I think sex is a big part of it. Americans are all so sexually repressed. People keep trying to blame everything on drugs/alcohol, but there is something wrong with their sober state to begin with, or they wouldn't want it. "Sobriety" is way overrated, in my distorted opinion.:lol:


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> You're comparing cigarettes and cigars with _*heroin? *_What's wrong with this picture? Nothing, it's a good example of the brainwashing effects of the "War on Drugs," social engineering, early indoctrination...
> 
> I mean, we all understand that cigarettes are highly addictive (I haven't had a cigar in months), but "addiction" to marijuana is bogus. I can see how younger kids might get "trapped" in a crowd or lifestyle that does it for rebellion, etc, but *marijuana is not physically addictive like cigarettes or heroin.*


Yes, I am comparing nicotine in cigarettes and cigars with heroin. At any given time, there is only a 5% success rate with kicking a tobacco addiction. Do you have any good evidence to refute what I said, other than vague allusions to brainwashing, social engineering, and early indoctrination? Not to mention the fact that cigarettes and cigars (and chewing tobacco) also have several other severe impacts on health beyond merely the addictive properties of nicotine.

And I think we are focusing on the wrong thing here. Addiction is not the only problem with drugs. It can exacerbate a problem by leading to compulsive use, but certainly alcohol can cause adverse effects in individuals that are not addicted just as much as in those who are. The same with other drugs. Addiction can be a compounding problem, but I think it is wrong to focus on addiction as the only potential problem with taking various drugs.


----------



## neoshredder

millionrainbows said:


> I think people use alcohol because it lowers inhibitions and stimulates talking. I think sex is a big part of it. Americans are all so sexually repressed. People keep trying to blame everything on drugs/alcohol, but there is something wrong with their sober state to begin with, or they wouldn't want it. "Sobriety" is way overrated, in my distorted opinion.:lol:


There you go again about generalizing Americans.  And I drink it to have fun and be more in touch with my emotions which is comforting.


----------



## Ukko

millionrainbows said:


> I think people use alcohol because it lowers inhibitions and stimulates talking. I think sex is a big part of it. Americans are all so sexually repressed. People keep trying to blame everything on drugs/alcohol, but there is something wrong with their sober state to begin with, or they wouldn't want it. "Sobriety" is way overrated, in my distorted opinion.:lol:


By Jove, you may have something there! There may be more _workaholics_ here than elsewhere, with the problems that come with that narrow focus. The only way to get a break from the deadening treadmill is to jump into... the standard distractions?


----------



## millionrainbows

DrMike said:


> Yes, I am comparing nicotine in cigarettes and cigars with heroin....Do you have any good evidence to refute what I said, other than vague allusions to brainwashing, social engineering, and early indoctrination?


Evidence? You want _evidence?_ No, I'm not on trial here, and I'm just speaking from a common-sense personal perspective; after all, use of these substances should be up to the individual..._but no!_ Now it's a *"social problem"* that needs data and evidence. It needs to be "declared war on" and create indoctrination policies for children. It's a "matter of state" now. Dear, dear.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Evidence? You want _evidence?_ No, I'm not on trial here, and I'm just speaking from a common-sense personal perspective; after all, use of these substances should be up to the individual..._but no!_ Now it's a *"social problem"* that needs data and evidence. It needs to be "declared war on" and create indoctrination policies for children. It's a "matter of state" now. Dear, dear.


Well, that is a nice straw man you have constructed there. How nicely you tore him down. Now we can get to what I was actually talking about.

Just because scientists study something doesn't mean that we are trying to shut it down. It is the nature of science to determine how things work. Much of the pharmaceutical industry is based on identifying a desirable effect in some chemical compound or other, analyzing it for the various effects it has, determining what is responsible for that effect, and determining whether there might be clinical uses for it. For instance, aspirin was discovered from the observation that brewing a tea from the bark of a certain tree helped with pain and headaches. Scientists analyzed the components of the bark and ultimately were able to determine that the active chemical in the bark was aspirin.

A lot of research goes into things like heroin, because it is well known that opioids can be very effective in controlling severe pain. At the same time, though, they need to know what all the various side effects can be - after all, if they were to introduce a drug without having a good idea of the potential side effects, they are just begging for a lawsuit. There is information on studies of marijuana, as well, because, among other things, marijuana, and specifically THC, are being investigated for the potential use in the clinical setting for controlling pain. In fact, there are several potential drugs based on this that are being investigated. Again, with any drug you are developing, you want to be certain about the potential side effects. In the case of tobacco, given the strong link with other health problems, this has led to a lot of research into just what all tobacco causes, and why.

To what extent should the use of substances be left up to the individual? What if a substance was known to induce violent behavior, but people like how it makes them feel? Is there no compelling interest in the state regulating the use of that substance? As I have shown above, there are certainly other reasons to study something, generate data on it, that fall outside any of the boogiemen you list. I never said that we need to declare a war on drugs. I think this has been stupid, just as the war on poverty has been stupid. I do think substance abuse can be a social problem - given the number of alcohol-associated traffic accidents alone, I think that is irrefutable. However, as I stated before, I am not a hard-nosed proponent of making drugs illegal. However, if there is going to be any use of tax funds to help heal the problems caused by drug use, then I absolutely will demand that there be regulation and restrictions. If, as has been suggested before, the drug use of another is not going to impact my tax dollars, then I am more amenable to keeping government out of the way.


----------



## neoshredder

I think nicotine should be illegal. I'm fine with smoking (though I doubt many will) without nicotine. That horrible addiction.


----------



## jani

I was raised with fear when it came to alcohol/Smokes&Drugs, my parents made it clear that if they would catch me doing any of them before i reach the legal age( Here the legal drinking age is +18) i would be in trouble.
They never said it but i knew that i would be in huge trouble if i would drink/smoke etc...
Today i don't feel any temptation towards alcohol/ smokes etc...
And its all because of my parents and i am very thankful for them for that.


----------



## neoshredder

jani said:


> I was raised with fear when it came to alcohol/Smokes&Drugs, my parents made it clear that if they would catch me doing any of them before i reach the legal age( Here the legal drinking age is +18) i would be in trouble.
> They never said it but i knew that i would be in huge trouble if i would drink/smoke etc...
> Today i don't feel any temptation towards alcohol/ smokes etc...
> And its all because of my parents and i am very thankful for them for that.


The thing about drugs. Drugs are bad.


----------



## millionrainbows

DrMike said:


> ...A lot of research goes into things like heroin...There is information on studies of marijuana...Is there no compelling interest in the state regulating the use of that substance?...I do think substance abuse can be a social problem - given the number of alcohol-associated traffic accidents alone, I think that is irrefutable...I am not a hard-nosed proponent of making drugs illegal...I absolutely will demand that there be regulation and restrictions.


That's fine, but I don't care what those scientists and studies say. The thread asked the question "What do you think of pot? How often do you smoke?," not anything about what other people think. I guess "the individual" and his opinion don't matter much to you...only the studies and opinions of these large corporate entities who hired the scientists.



DrMike said:


> ...if there is going to be any use of tax funds to help heal the problems caused by drug use, then I absolutely will demand that there be regulation and restrictions. If, as has been suggested before, the drug use of another is not going to impact my tax dollars, then I am more amenable to keeping government out of the way.


We can discuss the potential impact this has on your wallet over a "cup of tea.":lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

neoshredder said:


> I think nicotine should be illegal. I'm fine with smoking (though I doubt many will) without nicotine. That horrible addiction.





neoshredder said:


> The thing about drugs. Drugs are bad.


Wow, I didn't realize you were so "anti-drug." How do you feel about censorship of rock music, "neoshredder?" You are putting yourself in league with the "War on Drugs" people, the same people who want to censor *our* rock music.

*Be careful who you throw-in your lot with, *because "if you lay with dogs, you will get fleas" as the saying goes. The "drug/smoking" issue is not just about _your_ morality or _your_ opinion, it has become a "politicized behemoth" which will have lasting, permanent effects on our social freedoms. Just like religion, morality now seems to be "claimed" as the exclusive realm of larger entities who know what's good for you; perhaps with ties to corporations (drugs hurt profits & efficiency) and the religious right; after all, it all started with Reagan and his "War on Drugs."

What is this, the "New Prohibition?" Meanwhile, go into that bathroom and fill this cup. DON'T FLUSH, either!

"Sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll"...I'm sure that if they can outlaw drugs, they can outlaw "sex and rock and roll" to complete the job.:devil::lol:


----------



## neoshredder

So you are comparing drugs to rock? Ridiculous comparison. And nicotine gives you no pleasure other than to allow the smoking companies to get people hooked for life. And btw I was showing a funny scene from South Park. I didn't say I agreed with that black and white logic. I only think Nicotine should be illegal because of how incredibly addictive it is. Therefore you lose freedom by being a slave to nicotine.


----------



## neoshredder

But I'm against criminal records for nicotine. I just think stores should be closed if getting caught selling it. No charges need to be made though outside of that though.


----------



## neoshredder

But I bet alcohol and cigarettes are some of the best things going for the government with all the tax they put on those things.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> That's fine, but I don't care what those scientists and studies say. The thread asked the question "What do you think of pot? How often do you smoke?," not anything about what other people think. I guess "the individual" and his opinion don't matter much to you...only the studies and opinions of these large corporate entities who hired the scientists.
> 
> We can discuss the potential impact this has on your wallet over a "cup of tea.":lol:


So tell me - if/when you decide to use a drug or narcotic, what information do you consider in your decision? The word of a friend? The word of the dealer trying to sell it to you? Your attitude makes no sense to me. I always ask what the side effects are for anything I am going to put in my body. Do you realize how many risks you are able to avoid today because at some point, someone studied those risks and warned people? Damn those scientists for telling us that asbestos could cause serious health problems! If we want asbestos in our homes, we damn-well should be able to have it and not be pestered by "scientific" findings funded by people trying to scare us. And while we are at it, screw those scientists who told us lead-based paint was bad. My buddy painted his whole house with the stuff, and practically drinks a gallon of it every day, and HE is okay.

For a person that is concerned over her 19-year old using pot, I think that the scientific evidence for what impact pot use can have on the child would absolutely be desired information.

I don't care what the opinions of the individual are on a scientific topic - you are correct. Feelings and such have absolutely no value in such a situation. Do I think that all scientific findings should automatically influence legislation? No. I think it is good that we have more information about what these drugs are, and what they do, so that people can be more informed. I don't think that it should automatically lead to governmental prohibition. I prefer that people make their own choices. But I prefer that their choices be informed. If you are using these substances and ignoring studies on their affects, basing your choice on what someone else told you about the drug, I think that is not a very smart move, but to each their own.

The thing, if anything, that makes me lean more towards regulation or restriction of these substances is that, ultimately, the rest of society at some point has to pay for those choices. I.V. drug use, for example, has larger effects than merely a bunch of people getting high. If they o.d. and go to an emergency room, many are dirt poor, so guess who pays for their hospital stay? What about programs to provide free needles to users? What about government-run methodone clinics? What about the spread of disease that is exacerbated by i.v. drug use - hepatitis C, hepatitis B, HIV? Guess who has to pay for those health consequences? How much does cigarette smoking increase the cost of healthcare in this country? How many accidents and fatalities are caused by drunk-driving? I realize that something like pot isn't going to be behind almost everything I have listed here. But my point is that it is naive to think that drug use in general happens in a vacuum.

If it truly isn't going to impact me, then I have no problem with your, or anyone else using it. I will work with my own children to teach them to avoid such things, just as my parents did with me. What the law is is irrelevant. There are many things I avoid that are not illegal - coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol. The legality of the substance is irrelevant to my avoidance. Were the entire pantheon of narcotics to be legalized tomorrow, my behavior wouldn't change one bit.


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> So you are comparing drugs to rock? Ridiculous comparison. And nicotine gives you no pleasure other than to allow the smoking companies to get people hooked for life. And btw I was showing a funny scene from South Park. I didn't say I agreed with that black and white logic. I only think Nicotine should be illegal because of how incredibly addictive it is. Therefore you lose freedom by being a slave to nicotine.


No, nicotine actually does induce a pleasurable reaction in the brain. It acts through neurotransmitters, just as heroin does (albeit different ones). Actually, studies suggest that nicotine can have different affects depending on how much is taken in. Large amounts (from longer draws on a cigarette) can be calming to the user, while smaller amounts can actually provide a stimulant affect.

But you are right - the comparison of drugs to rock is nonsensical.

I don't think it should be illegal because it is addictive. In this sense, it is a case of the government playing nanny. I would much rather people take responsibility for their actions. Inform them of the risks, and let them decide. If a person knows that nicotine is addictive, and they still decide to use it, so be it. I think it is pretty stupid, but to each their own. I do agree with smoke-free zones, though. Your rights end where they infringe upon mine, and I should not have to inhale carcinogens because someone else wants their nicotine-kick.


----------



## Head_case

> That's fine, but I don't care what those scientists and studies say. The thread asked the question "What do you think of pot? How often do you smoke?," not anything about what other people think. I guess "the individual" and his opinion don't matter much to you...only the studies and opinions of these large corporate entities who hired the scientists.


When reason fails us, lets be unreasonable and petulantly childish and say we'll do what the hell we like because it's no good for us! :lol:


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> But I bet alcohol and cigarettes are some of the best things going for the government with all the tax they put on those things.


That is the dirty secret - like gasoline, government can lay huge taxes - "sin taxes" - on alcohol and tabacco, because the addictive nature of tobacco, as well as the near universal societal acceptance of alcohol, means that there will ALWAYS be a market. And nobody fights against raising taxes on them.

It actually boggles my mind. It is expensive to feed a nicotine addiction. In the U.S., women smoke 15 cigarettes a day, and men smoke 18 a day, on average. A pack is ~20. So a male smoker, on average, smokes 1 pack/day. The approximate average cost throughout the U.S. is $6.73/pack (lowest is West Virginia, ~$4.84 in 2012; highest is New York, ~$12.50 in 2012), which comes out to $2400/year. In New York, you are looking more at ~$4600/year.


----------



## Turangalîla

To answer the OP question, I don't believe in marijuana, nicotine, alcohol, or anything of the sort, and I have never touched any of it in my life.


----------



## Alydon

'If I had all the money I've spent on drink - I'd spend it on drink!'


----------



## Mesa

I just solved a Captcha that said 'eYepod SHalt'. I would buy an Apple product called the eYepod SHalt. I am very high.


----------



## millionrainbows

DrMike said:


> So tell me - if/when you decide to use a drug or narcotic, what information do you consider in your decision? The word of a friend? The word of the dealer trying to sell it to you? Your attitude makes no sense to me. I always ask what the side effects are for anything I am going to put in my body. Do you realize how many risks you are...etc...


If it's marijuana, it's a natural plant. Examine it, smell it, taste it. Same with other plants...I don't use narcotics or drink, or do drugs, though, but I defend the rights of others to do so.


----------



## millionrainbows

DrMike said:


> But you are right - the comparison of drugs to rock is nonsensical.


I'm just saying that the same "mindset" of Reaganites who are fighting the "war on drugs" will have no prob-ola at all with censoring your music. That's what Frank Zappa thought, as well.:lol:


----------



## neoshredder

I laugh when anyone mentions a reason to use Marijuana because it is natural. So are mushrooms.


----------



## clavichorder

Mesa said:


> I just solved a Captcha that said 'eYepod SHalt'. I would buy an Apple product called the eYepod SHalt. I am very high.


Apparently.


----------



## Lukecash12

DrMike said:


> If it truly isn't going to impact me, then I have no problem with your, or anyone else using it. I will work with my own children to teach them to avoid such things, just as my parents did with me. What the law is is irrelevant. There are many things I avoid that are not illegal - coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol. The legality of the substance is irrelevant to my avoidance. Were the entire pantheon of narcotics to be legalized tomorrow, my behavior wouldn't change one bit.


That I can respect quite a bit. However, I don't feel any less "sober minded" than you, and by that I mean that I have no problems with memory retention, I don't have mental episodes, etc. As for cannabis users not knowing whether or not they are supported a mexican drug cartel, here's some info for you:

We call the stuff schwag. Schwag is really easy to tell apart because it is often riddled with seeds, poorly trimmed, hasn't much fragrance, and the THC crystallization isn't very visible at all. You, who probably aren't very experienced with the substance, can probably instantly tell the difference between the two when shown images to compare.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/files/images/swagvschron.jpg

Notice how the schwag on the right is full of stems and seeds, not very hairy, the color is dull, and there aren't any visible specks of white (THC). We know full well whether or not we are supported drug cartels with sales. The stereotype doesn't necessarily hold true at all, of going to some shady guy's house to buy cannabis, him always telling you it's the best, and giving you made up names for the strain. I buy only from some relatives and life long friends I have (if I have to pay for it at all). Our relationships aren't based upon the stuff at all, and we haven't any reasons for BSing each other.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I'm just saying that the same "mindset" of Reaganites who are fighting the "war on drugs" will have no prob-ola at all with censoring your music. That's what Frank Zappa thought, as well.:lol:


Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't it Al Gore's wife that was heading up the PMRC?


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> If it's marijuana, it's a natural plant. Examine it, smell it, taste it. Same with other plants...I don't use narcotics or drink, or do drugs, though, but I defend the rights of others to do so.


Personally, I am glad that others have already done the legwork for me. I am glad somebody else warned me about poison oak and ivy. I'd hate to find out the side effects by touching it personally. As I said, I am not opposed to people doing what they want. But your rejection of scientific studies that tell us what is in these things, and what effect they might have on us, doesn't make sense. That is not mutually exclusive with consuming those things. Why would you be opposed to getting as much information as you can? And why should a scientific study be suspect? Take tobacco, for example. Nobody is preventing you from using it. But by your logic above, it is a natural plant. You can examine it, smell it, taste it. And if you determined from that that it was something you wanted to try, then you could do it. But wouldn't you want to know what those very basic empirical observations won't tell you - that it is addictive, that smoking it or chewing it may very likely cause your premature death due to heart disease or cancer? Information that some scientist somewhere discovered through studying tobacco more in depth than you did? That is my argument - not that you shouldn't be able to use it, but that it doesn't make sense to not avail ourselves of all the information on a substance that is available.


----------



## Ramako

I am always surprised about how widespread this stuff is. I would never have thought of taking it, and wouldn't at all now, and wouldn't in the future most probably. It is illegal in my country and I also find it surprising how this doesn't seem to matter to people - or perhaps it does and it is an incentive. But this also makes little sense to me, largely because of its moderation. I guess usually it is social pressures that spread such things.


----------



## Guest

Lukecash12 said:


> That I can respect quite a bit. However, I don't feel any less "sober minded" than you, and by that I mean that I have no problems with memory retention, I don't have mental episodes, etc. As for cannabis users not knowing whether or not they are supported a mexican drug cartel, here's some info for you:
> 
> We call the stuff schwag. Schwag is really easy to tell apart because it is often riddled with seeds, poorly trimmed, hasn't much fragrance, and the THC crystallization isn't very visible at all. You, who probably aren't very experienced with the substance, can probably instantly tell the difference between the two when shown images to compare.
> 
> http://www.cannabisculture.com/files/images/swagvschron.jpg
> 
> Notice how the schwag on the right is full of stems and seeds, not very hairy, the color is dull, and there aren't any visible specks of white (THC). We know full well whether or not we are supported drug cartels with sales. The stereotype doesn't necessarily hold true at all, of going to some shady guy's house to buy cannabis, him always telling you it's the best, and giving you made up names for the strain. I buy only from some relatives and life long friends I have (if I have to pay for it at all). Our relationships aren't based upon the stuff at all, and we haven't any reasons for BSing each other.


I do understand that there is domestically grown marijuana, and that the difference in quality is striking. But I also know that the market for Mexican grown and illegally smuggled marijuana has not dried up. Although there are high quality burger establishments that offer a superior product, McDonald's still sells its burgers. Why? I suspect the difference in price. The cheap stuff is cheaper and more readily available. And so the people who don't care will buy the cheaper stuff. While there might be a higher proportion of people on this board that use the higher quality domestic weed, in the broader American populace, the Mexican product is the dominant stuff used.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> I do understand that there is domestically grown marijuana, and that the difference in quality is striking. But I also know that the market for Mexican grown and illegally smuggled marijuana has not dried up. Although there are high quality burger establishments that offer a superior product, McDonald's still sells its burgers. Why? I suspect the difference in price. The cheap stuff is cheaper and more readily available. And so the people who don't care will buy the cheaper stuff. While there might be a higher proportion of people on this board that use the higher quality domestic weed, in the broader American populace, the Mexican product is the dominant stuff used.


How do the data collectors get that info about what is in significant measure a cottage industry in the US. I am suspicious of your sources (of information that is, not pot).


----------



## millionrainbows

neoshredder said:


> I laugh when anyone mentions a reason to use Marijuana because it is natural. So are mushrooms.


I'm not citing reasons for you to use Marijuana, but am simply responding to the query:



DrMike said:


> So tell me - if/when you decide to use a drug or narcotic, what information do you consider in your decision?


----------



## millionrainbows

DrMike said:


> Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't it Al Gore's wife that was heading up the PMRC?


What significance do you give that? That Al Gore is a Democrat, and all Democrats are supposed to be pro-drug?


----------



## millionrainbows

DrMike said:


> There are many things I avoid that are not illegal - coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol. The legality of the substance is irrelevant to my avoidance. Were the entire pantheon of narcotics to be legalized tomorrow, my behavior wouldn't change one bit.


Well, that's just fine for you. Most of the rest of us wake up, drink coffee, have iced tea as a beverage, and are just as viable, productive, creative, and normal citizens as you are. I have to wonder why you are telling us all this in these lengthy posts. Is it related to religion? Perhaps you see your avoidance of coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol as somehow morally superior.

Myself, I smoke an occasional cigar, and don't drink alcohol.



DrMike said:


> If it truly isn't going to impact me, then I have no problem with your, or anyone else using it.


That seems to contradict what you said here:


DrMike said:


> The thing, if anything, that makes me lean more towards regulation or restriction of these substances is that, ultimately, the rest of society at some point has to pay for those choices. I.V. drug use, for example, has larger effects than merely a bunch of people getting high. If they o.d. and go to an emergency room, many are dirt poor, so guess who pays for their hospital stay? What about programs to provide free needles to users? What about government-run methodone clinics? What about the spread of disease that is exacerbated by i.v. drug use - hepatitis C, hepatitis B, HIV? Guess who has to pay for those health consequences? How much does cigarette smoking increase the cost of healthcare in this country? How many accidents and fatalities are caused by drunk-driving? I realize that something like pot isn't going to be behind almost everything I have listed here. But my point is that it is naive to think that drug use in general happens in a vacuum.


You seem to see this issue as an excuse to get political on us. I have no interest in that spin.



DrMike said:


> I prefer that people make their own choices. But I prefer that their choices be informed. If you are using these substances and ignoring studies on their affects, basing your choice on what someone else told you about the drug, I think that is not a very smart move, but to each their own.


I don't think you're interested in free choice.


----------



## millionrainbows

Ramako said:


> I am always surprised about how widespread this stuff is. I would never have thought of taking it, and wouldn't at all now, and wouldn't in the future most probably. It is illegal in my country and I also find it surprising how this doesn't seem to matter to people - or perhaps it does and it is an incentive. But this also makes little sense to me, largely because of its moderation. I guess usually it is social pressures that spread such things.


I thought that Marijuana was on its way in America to becoming legal in some states, if not already. You don't have gun ownership over there in the UK either, do you?


----------



## millionrainbows

Hilltroll72 said:


> How do the data collectors get that info about what is in significant measure a cottage industry in the US. I am suspicious of your sources (of information that is, not pot).


Me too, Hilltroll72, but the use of statistics seems to be addictive with some people.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> What significance do you give that? That Al Gore is a Democrat, and all Democrats are supposed to be pro-drug?


No - you suggested that the mindset of controlling drugs and censoring music was one and the same, and a symptom of "Reaganites." I am pointing out that one of the most prominent proponents of censoring music was Tipper Gore, then wife of then-Senator Al Gore, who is, and was, most decidedly not a "Reaganite." You are the one who first introduced politics into the whole equation.


----------



## millionrainbows

*jjj*



DrMike said:


> I do understand that there is domestically grown marijuana, and that the difference in quality is striking. But I also know that the market for Mexican grown and illegally smuggled marijuana has not dried up. Although there are high quality burger establishments that offer a superior product, McDonald's still sells its burgers. Why? I suspect the difference in price. The cheap stuff is cheaper and more readily available. And so the people who don't care will buy the cheaper stuff. While there might be a higher proportion of people on this board that use the higher quality domestic weed, in the broader American populace, the Mexican product is the dominant stuff used.


I do 99% of my cooking at home, but I think the reason people like McDonald's is that for an _occasional treat,_ it is consistently good. I have had bad experiences with high-end burger places more often. A place here called "Hut's" won the Austin Chronicle's award for best burger, and when I went there I was sorely disappointed. The soft drinks were not properly carbonated, the fries were mushy, and the meat was tasteless. At least you can trust McDonald's to know their business well enough to get the basics correct, and to produce a reasonably consistent product.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> How do the data collectors get that info about what is in significant measure a cottage industry in the US. I am suspicious of your sources (of information that is, not pot).


Yes, it is difficult to get accurate data. My information comes from the Drug Policy Research Center at the Rand Corporation. Their research suggests that anywhere from 40-67% of marijuana in the U.S. comes from Mexico. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9559.html


----------



## neoshredder

More South Park.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Well, that's just fine for you. Most of the rest of us wake up, drink coffee, have iced tea as a beverage, and are just as viable, productive, creative, and normal citizens as you are. I have to wonder why you are telling us all this in these lengthy posts. Is it related to religion? Perhaps you see your avoidance of coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol as somehow morally superior.
> 
> Myself, I smoke an occasional cigar, and don't drink alcohol.
> 
> That seems to contradict what you said here:
> 
> You seem to see this issue as an excuse to get political on us. I have no interest in that spin.
> 
> I don't think you're interested in free choice.


So do you purposely choose to misconstrue my statements? Why I don't partake of those substances is irrelevant. I was making the point that my choice to not use marijuana is independent of its legality, as there are other things from which I abstain that are perfectly legal.

My statements regarding whether illicit drugs should be legalized is consistent - I am fine with their legalization so long as the impact of their usage is not imposed on society at large. If I am going to be forced, through the utilization of my tax dollars, to pay for the consequences of drug use, then I am going to demand some form of regulation of those drugs.

You don't think I am interested in free choice. So? I don't think you are interested in facts, as you seem so opposed to finding out the facts about what the use of these drugs can do to someone. Apparently to you, legalization of drugs should also mean that nobody should tell you anything bad about them. That seems like a logical approach.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Me too, Hilltroll72, but the use of statistics seems to be addictive with some people.


Heaven forbid we should let facts and information get in the way of our informed judgment. You are right - damn these statistics. What do they know, anyways. All they do is make us question the larger implications of what we are doing, and who needs that when we are talking about getting buzzed.


----------



## Lukecash12

Ramako said:


> I am always surprised about how widespread this stuff is. I would never have thought of taking it, and wouldn't at all now, and wouldn't in the future most probably. It is illegal in my country and I also find it surprising how this doesn't seem to matter to people - or perhaps it does and it is an incentive. But this also makes little sense to me, largely because of its moderation. I guess usually it is social pressures that spread such things.


1. It is actually close to being legalized in California, and it is already legal without a card in a few states, such as Colorado.

2. I guess you could say that we "vote with our feet", because we disagree with these laws concerning cannabis consumption.


----------



## Lukecash12

DrMike said:


> I do understand that there is domestically grown marijuana, and that the difference in quality is striking. But I also know that the market for Mexican grown and illegally smuggled marijuana has not dried up. Although there are high quality burger establishments that offer a superior product, McDonald's still sells its burgers. Why? I suspect the difference in price. The cheap stuff is cheaper and more readily available. And so the people who don't care will buy the cheaper stuff. While there might be a higher proportion of people on this board that use the higher quality domestic weed, in the broader American populace, the Mexican product is the dominant stuff used.


While I can see what you're saying, I just don't grant so easily the conclusions of this study you quote. Yes, their findings are interesting, but I find it preposterous to make a definite statement like that, considering that they can't reasonably grasp the buying climate like that. Do you really think that cannabis users typically want to submit themselves to such a survey? And I've found in all my dealings with people in the US and what I've heard of other's dealings, and from not just one survey but a variety of them, that the situation is very dependent upon the area.

Living in the area I live in, with quite a supply of cannabis grown here, I've never found another local cannabis user who has said that they usually prefer to buy schwag. We enjoy such decent prices for cannabis that is loads better, and even comment about how there are some extra unpleasant side effects to using schwag. Most people I've heard from who have used the stuff, say that they got a head ache from it, and that it tasted pretty bad. As for me, I've never once smoked schwag. Why would I when I can purchase an eighth of mid grade for 20$, or top notch stuff with as much THC content as 31% for a paltry 35$?

I've been smoking the stuff for most of my life, and when I pack a bowl of say, my cousin Taheta's chocolate chunk, I typically don't even feel like finishing more than just under half the bowl in one sitting if I am smoking by myself. This is because his stuff is mostly 26-32%, when I've heard card clinics brag about 19%, and it's so dense that it lasts more than three times as long as mid grade cannabis. I've sat down with me, my brother, my sister in law, and my brother from another mother Josh, and we didn't feel at all like finishing the bowl in one sitting, because we had already passed the bong around six times and the bowl was still going, after we had filled a fairly long chamber with smoke each time. Compare that to some mid grade stuff that is already finished once it's been passed between four people three times. And schwag doesn't even compare favorably at all to mid grade cannabis.

Maybe someone in Idaho will settle for schwag, but certainly no one I know in Manteca who partakes. Now, why is schwag so terrible? Well, here's a little bit about how they grow it:

They take huge plots of land and just plant tons of seeds crowded too close to each other, using terrible pesticides or even just letting mites, caterpillars, etc. eat away at it, which can sometimes even result in someone buying rotted cannabis. They make no effort to limit or boost the amount of sunlight the plants receive, according to how mature they are. No nutrients are given them, and one highly doubts they can properly water that many plants at once, either. The plants all go into flower too early and are full of seeds, because of these conditions over stressing the plants and producing males and hermaphrodites. Of course, it goes without saying that growers who don't even give their plants such basic care don't bother to properly prune and top their plants, either.

Now, we probably consume a lot more over here than in Idaho, for example, and we have more than enough of a locally grown supply. So, those results seem pretty skewed to me, because the biggest consumers in the US seem to be states like california or oregon, and we really feel like we're just settling when we buy stuff that is at least a lot better than schwag. Why might I assume that we consume more here? Well, when I'm in other states, I don't walk around finding people at novelty shops, restaraunts, pretty much everywhere who use cannabis.


----------



## Turangalîla

I dislike how people blame other people's views on marijuana, etc. on their "religion". Everyone taking part in this discussion has a worldview and _cannot help_ but have every one of their opinions affected by it, whether you label your worldview as a "religion" or not.


----------



## millionrainbows

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I dislike how people blame other people's views on marijuana, etc. on their "religion". Everyone taking part in this discussion has a worldview and _cannot help_ but have every one of their opinions affected by it, whether you label your worldview as a "religion" or not.


You mean like the Rastafarians, who use Marijuana as a religious sacrement, or the Plains Indians, who do the same with peyote?


----------



## Guest

Lukecash12 said:


> While I can see what you're saying, I just don't grant so easily the conclusions of this study you quote. Yes, their findings are interesting, but I find it preposterous to make a definite statement like that, considering that they can't reasonably grasp the buying climate like that. Do you really think that cannabis users typically want to submit themselves to such a survey? And I've found in all my dealings with people in the US and what I've heard of other's dealings, and from not just one survey but a variety of them, that the situation is very dependent upon the area.
> 
> Living in the area I live in, with quite a supply of cannabis grown here, I've never found another local cannabis user who has said that they usually prefer to buy schwag. We enjoy such decent prices for cannabis that is loads better, and even comment about how there are some extra unpleasant side effects to using schwag. Most people I've heard from who have used the stuff, say that they got a head ache from it, and that it tasted pretty bad. As for me, I've never once smoked schwag. Why would I when I can purchase an eighth of mid grade for 20$, or top notch stuff with as much THC content as 31% for a paltry 35$?
> 
> I've been smoking the stuff for most of my life, and when I pack a bowl of say, my cousin Taheta's chocolate chunk, I typically don't even feel like finishing more than just under half the bowl in one sitting if I am smoking by myself. This is because his stuff is mostly 26-32%, when I've heard card clinics brag about 19%, and it's so dense that it lasts more than three times as long as mid grade cannabis. I've sat down with me, my brother, my sister in law, and my brother from another mother Josh, and we didn't feel at all like finishing the bowl in one sitting, because we had already passed the bong around six times and the bowl was still going, after we had filled a fairly long chamber with smoke each time. Compare that to some mid grade stuff that is already finished once it's been passed between four people three times. And schwag doesn't even compare favorably at all to mid grade cannabis.
> 
> Maybe someone in Idaho will settle for schwag, but certainly no one I know in Manteca who partakes. Now, why is schwag so terrible? Well, here's a little bit about how they grow it:
> 
> They take huge plots of land and just plant tons of seeds crowded too close to each other, using terrible pesticides or even just letting mites, caterpillars, etc. eat away at it, which can sometimes even result in someone buying rotted cannabis. They make no effort to limit or boost the amount of sunlight the plants receive, according to how mature they are. No nutrients are given them, and one highly doubts they can properly water that many plants at once, either. The plants all go into flower too early and are full of seeds, because of these conditions over stressing the plants and producing males and hermaphrodites. Of course, it goes without saying that growers who don't even give their plants such basic care don't bother to properly prune and top their plants, either.
> 
> Now, we probably consume a lot more over here than in Idaho, for example, and we have more than enough of a locally grown supply. So, those results seem pretty skewed to me, because the biggest consumers in the US seem to be states like california or oregon, and we really feel like we're just settling when we buy stuff that is at least a lot better than schwag. Why might I assume that we consume more here? Well, when I'm in other states, I don't walk around finding people at novelty shops, restaraunts, pretty much everywhere who use cannabis.


I do get that with you. But what about the high school student looking to score? What do you think he/she is more likely to find? I can guarantee that, whatever you are paying for your mid- to high-end stuff, the Mexican stuff is selling cheaper. And what do you think is going to appeal more to that person with limited financial means, and who is still relatively new to it all? I also suspect, with the difficulty of transporting the stuff, that the further you get from those places where it is grown (Oregon, California, etc.), that it gets tougher to obtain the high-end stuff, unless you have greater means.

It is difficult to get truly accurate information on the use of illegal drugs. A lot is based on drug seizures by the DEA. But the Mexican stuff is still selling in the U.S. I recognize that it is nastier than the good stuff locally (and for that matter, there is also crap produced in the U.S). But it is still selling. There is always going to be a market for the cheaper crappier product. Look at every form of narcotic - generally there is a whole range of quality available. Even with cigarettes and alcohol, there are high-end, pricier alternatives and low-end, crappy choices. And people buy both. And purchasing the Mexican product lines the pockets of drug cartels that are running a murderous war that is occurring on both sides of the border.


----------



## Guest

I would highlight one definite problem of marijuana that a few people have touched on. I don't know how many people here who have admitted to using pot are in a place where it is legal to do so, but there are definitely some that aren't. So one thing that can definitely be said about it is that users of marijuana are likely to break the law to do it.

Now, I get that people don't like the law. And I confess that it is a ridiculous law, at least with marijuana, given that nicotine and alcohol seem to have much higher risks and yet are legal. But it is the law. I hate tax laws as they now stand. I don't violate them, though. There are a whole bunch of laws that I think are crap. But the point is, in a lawful society, the whole thing works because we all give our assent to being ruled by a system of laws. We make a trade-off, sacrificing some liberties in exchange for certain guarantees from the government. If we allow people to pick and choose which laws they will and won't abide by, then the system falls apart. You don't like the laws? Work through the political system to elect and influence politicians to enact the policies you like. Yes, you might fail, because you do need a majority to agree with you.

I, personally, like how Washington and Colorado have done it. But there are problems. As long as the pot stays in state, that is fine. But trafficking the stuff out of state - as it seems is occurring with the California weed - gets into federal issues. Interstate commerce is under the control of the federal government.

So the law is the law. Use of marijuana, except within those places where it is legal, is violating the law, not only for possessing and using the stuff, but also the trafficking of the drug. True, less people are getting hurt from the domestic traffic of weed grown within the U.S., but legality is not strictly tied to the amount of physical harm that an action causes. Getting back to my tax issue, if I choose to not pay my taxes, nobody is physically harmed. But the law is still violated. So it gets to a moral question - is it moral to violate a law for the sole purpose of increasing one's own pleasure? Leaving aside the medical uses of marijuana, there is no need to use it.


----------



## millionrainbows

DrMike said:


> ...one thing that can definitely be said about it is that users of marijuana are likely to break the law to do it...in a lawful society, the whole thing works because we all give our assent to being ruled by a system of laws...If we allow people to pick and choose which laws they will and won't abide by, then the system falls apart. You don't like the laws? Work through the political system to elect and influence politicians to enact the policies you like. Yes, you might fail, because you do need a majority to agree with you...So the law is the law. Use of marijuana, except within those places where it is legal, is violating the law...
> ...if I choose to not pay my taxes, nobody is physically harmed. But the law is still violated. So it gets to a moral question...is it moral to violate a law for the sole purpose of increasing one's own pleasure? Leaving aside the medical uses of marijuana, there is no need to use it.


Wall Street didn't abide by the law. Why aren't we complaining about that? George Bush junior lied to us about weapons of mass destruction; I consider that to be breaking the law. Why should recreational pot-smokers be held to a higher standard than bankers and politicians?

The observations and 'solutions' proposed to these subjects seem one-dimensional. The real world is more complicated than any pat answers would have us believe, but if it makes anyone feel better to expound and make these pronouncements, we are in the wings, listening with headphones, in darkened rooms, taking notes. We are Patriots, and we shall act accordingly.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Me? I'm just trying to find out a little more about the nineteen-year-old in question.

And- I'm also making an effort *not* to piggy-back my own personal political pre-conceptions onto this thread.

We have a WHOLE Social Group for that kind of stuff.

If we can't focus on the topic, this will become an un-topic in really quick order.


----------



## millionrainbows

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Me? I'm just trying to find out a little more about the nineteen-year-old in question.
> 
> And- I'm also making an effort *not* to piggy-back my own personal political pre-conceptions onto this thread.
> 
> We have a WHOLE Social Group for that kind of stuff.
> 
> If we can't focus on the topic, this will become an un-topic in really quick order.


Okay, but lest the proximity of this warning to my post make me seem solely culpable, please note the previous mention of "tax dollars" which can be construed as political as well.


----------



## Ukko

Regarding that tax dollar thing, I very strongly suspect that more of them are used in The War On Drugs than would ever be used to treat drug-related illness. And that takes into consideration bloated medical fees.


----------



## Lukecash12

DrMike said:


> I would highlight one definite problem of marijuana that a few people have touched on. I don't know how many people here who have admitted to using pot are in a place where it is legal to do so, but there are definitely some that aren't. So one thing that can definitely be said about it is that users of marijuana are likely to break the law to do it.
> 
> Now, I get that people don't like the law. And I confess that it is a ridiculous law, at least with marijuana, given that nicotine and alcohol seem to have much higher risks and yet are legal. But it is the law. I hate tax laws as they now stand. I don't violate them, though. There are a whole bunch of laws that I think are crap. But the point is, in a lawful society, the whole thing works because we all give our assent to being ruled by a system of laws. We make a trade-off, sacrificing some liberties in exchange for certain guarantees from the government. If we allow people to pick and choose which laws they will and won't abide by, then the system falls apart. You don't like the laws? Work through the political system to elect and influence politicians to enact the policies you like. Yes, you might fail, because you do need a majority to agree with you.
> 
> I, personally, like how Washington and Colorado have done it. But there are problems. As long as the pot stays in state, that is fine. But trafficking the stuff out of state - as it seems is occurring with the California weed - gets into federal issues. Interstate commerce is under the control of the federal government.
> 
> So the law is the law. Use of marijuana, except within those places where it is legal, is violating the law, not only for possessing and using the stuff, but also the trafficking of the drug. True, less people are getting hurt from the domestic traffic of weed grown within the U.S., but legality is not strictly tied to the amount of physical harm that an action causes. Getting back to my tax issue, if I choose to not pay my taxes, nobody is physically harmed. But the law is still violated. So it gets to a moral question - is it moral to violate a law for the sole purpose of increasing one's own pleasure? Leaving aside the medical uses of marijuana, there is no need to use it.


Since when is the law a moral obligation? Is it morally wrong to commit a parking or traffic violation? No, it isn't. Laws are oftentimes made because they are deemed a benefit to the institution. To dissent on such a minor detail is not at all tantamount to implying a whole new principle as regards attitude towards the law.

Another way to change laws is by not cowing to unreasonable demands. People with much of the same reasoning who make legal exceptions, are the reason that we have better traffic laws today (I won't mention parking laws because they have become a nightmare in San Fran). As a collective, we can batter them into submission too. Sometimes they make demands that we make an exception with and don't dignify. This is one in that category, because of how blatantly hypocritical it is.


----------



## kv466

Oh, Luke...always able to convey what would come out of me as word vomit, so eloquently.


----------



## presto

I actually hate the idea of any drugs apart from purely medical reasons.
I’m able to get great enjoyment out of life without taking anything dodgy like this.
So I’ve never indulged and never will.


----------



## Flamme

Agatha said:


> - everyday
> - once a week
> - once in a while
> 
> recently i discovered that my son (19 years old) smokes pot almost every day.
> *he says that it is better to smoke pot than to xloke cigarttes*
> do you agree? i am having a realy hard time coping with this ...


Agree but it is mind altering last time if i remember in 2001.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I'm going out for a smoke.. .care to join me...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

still smoking - but don't need pot for that


----------



## Garlic

Cannabis effects everyone differently. Some have extremely positive reactions to it, others have a very bad time with it. I do get sick of the judgmental attitude some people have towards those who use it. Personally I love the stuff, and it has had largely positive effects on my life. You don't have to smoke it either (eating is better).


----------



## neoshredder

Pot sucks. Can't stand it. There's a reason why it's illegal.


----------



## Garlic

There are multiple reasons why it's illegal, all of them ridiculous.
Thankfully some countries (and US states) seem to be coming to their senses


----------



## neoshredder

Yes really ridiculous to ban a substance for effecting your brain.


----------



## Garlic

Do you support the prohibition of alcohol?


----------



## neoshredder

Garlic said:


> Do you support the prohibition of alcohol?


Some of the side-effects of alcohol aren't as serious as pot. Assuming you can control yourself and aren't an alcoholic. Alcohol is a more reliable and less anxiety induced substance. Btw I suffer from anxiety and I think pot was the reason. Also with pot you don't know what it is laced with. Btw I support alcohol as the only option. 2 drugs combined can only make things worse.


----------



## Ravndal

neoshredder said:


> Yes really ridiculous to ban a substance for effecting your brain.


Plenty of things that effects a brain; Tobacco, alcohol, music, whether or not you are hungry etc. And then there is pot, which doesn't do any harm and is a great alternative to alcohol. Some people get angry when drinking, and they should not be drinking at all. That's where pot comes in as a healthier alternative.


----------



## Garlic

neoshredder said:


> Some of the side-effects of alcohol aren't as serious as pot. Assuming you can control yourself and aren't an alcoholic.


Alcohol is highly toxic, highly physically addictive, has a low overdose threshold, can cause heart disease, bowel cancer etc., makes some people aggressive. Cannabis has extremely low toxicity, is impossible to overdose on, is not physically addictive, has never directly killed anyone, and very rarely causes aggression or violence.



neoshredder said:


> Alcohol is a more reliable and less anxiety induced substance. Btw I suffer from anxiety and I think pot was the reason.


Like I said, some people react badly to it. Some, like me, react badly to alcohol. I have found weed very useful for managing my anxiety and depression. Most people don't believe me when I say this.



neoshredder said:


> Also with pot you don't know what it is laced with.


If you have a decent supplier it's not laced with anything. And don't you see that this is an argument for legalisation? If it was legal there could be quality control.


----------



## neoshredder

Ravndal said:


> Plenty of things that effects a brain; Tobacco, alcohol, music, whether or not you are hungry etc. And then there is pot, which doesn't do any harm and is a great alternative to alcohol. Some people get angry when drinking, and they should not be drinking at all. That's where pot comes in as a healthier alternative.


Well my experience was different. Weed is more unpredictable. For someone vulnerable to panic attacks, weed was a bad choice for me. And btw 2 bads don't make a good. Legalizing weed just because it isn't quite as bad as alcohol in certain ways of life for certain people is not a good idea. To me, alcohol is a calming depressant while weed is a psychoactive drug that is unpredictable what the results will be. And legalizing weed will give some the option to use both simultaneously. That is a bigger risk than just using one or the other.


----------



## Ravndal

neoshredder said:


> Some of the side-effects of alcohol aren't as serious as pot. Assuming you can control yourself and aren't an alcoholic. Alcohol is a more reliable and less anxiety induced substance. Btw I suffer from anxiety and I think pot was the reason. Also with pot you don't know what it is laced with. Btw I support alcohol as the only option. 2 drugs combined can only make things worse.


LOL.



> Some of the side-effects of alcohol aren't as serious as pot





> Alcohol is a more reliable and less anxiety induced substance


Legendary quotes. You couldn't be more wrong.

Lets take a look on some of the negative effects caused by *weed: 
*
nausea, especially in combination with alcohol, some pharmaceuticals, or other psychoactives
coughing, asthma, upper respiratory problems
difficulty with short-term memory during effects and during periods of frequent use (Ranganathan M, D'Souza DC, Psychopharmacology, 2006)
racing heart, agitation, feeling tense
mild to severe anxiety
panic attacks in sensitive users or with very high doses (oral use increases risk of getting too much)
headaches
dizziness, confusion
lightheadedness or fainting (in cases of lowered blood pressure)
paranoid & anxious thoughts more frequent
possible psychological dependence on cannabis
clumsiness, loss of coordination at high doses
can precipitate or exacerbate latent or existing mental disorders

*Now alcohol:
*
decreased coordination
nausea, vomiting (vomiting while unconscious can kill)
reduced impulse control
emotional volatility (anger, violence, sadness, etc)
reduced ability to attain/maintain erection in most males
increased difficulty in achieving orgasm in some females
frequent urination (more with beer or wine), diuretic effect
dizziness and confusion
blackouts and memory loss at high doses
coma and death at extreme doses
brain and liver damage (cirrhosis) with heavy use
lowered inhibitions and increased confusion can lead to unwanted and negative sexual encounters (date rape)
hangover, lasting 12-36 hours, from mild to severe after heavy use
fetal damage in pregnant women at high dose or frequency

The primary effects sought by those using cannabis recreationally are euphoria, relaxation, and changes in perception. Effects vary depending on dosage, with effects at low doses including a sense of well-being, mild enhancement of senses (smell, taste, hearing), subtle changes in thought and expression, talkativeness, giggling, increased appreciation of music, increased appetite, and mild closed-eye visuals. At higher doses, sense of time is altered, attention span and memory are frequently affected, and thought processes and mental perception may be significantly altered.

One of the most common comments about cannabis is that it enhances the appreciation of sensory experiences without substantially changing the perceptual experience. Many people attribute their love of music, appreciation for new forms of music, and ability to play instruments to the use of cannabis.

*At overly high doses*, the effects are often likened to other psychedelics and panic and dysphoria (bad mood) are more common. High doses, especially when taken orally, can sometimes result in difficult experiences and trips to the emergency room in response to racing heart, extreme confusion, short-term memory loss, and panic. After high-dose experiences, especially among those who are not regular users, after effects can last 1-2 days.

Paradoxically, although cannabis is normally considered a relaxant / depressant, its effects are stimulating in a substantial portion of those who use it. While some people use it to help them sleep, others cannot sleep for 3-6 hours after their last smoke.

Links:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/alcohol/alcohol.shtml

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis.shtml


----------



## Ravndal

neoshredder said:


> Well my experience was different. Weed is more unpredictable. For someone vulnerable to panic attacks, weed was a bad choice for me. And btw 2 bads don't make a good. Legalizing weed just because it isn't quite as bad as alcohol in certain ways of life for certain people is not a good idea. To me, alcohol is a calming depressant while weed is a psychoactive drug that is unpredictable what the results will be. And legalizing weed will give some the option to use both simultaneously. That is a bigger risk than just using one or the other.


And you don't think alcohol can be unpredictable? Most people does not know their limit, and they can suddenly lose control or don't think they are as drunk as they are - often results in drunk driving.


----------



## neoshredder

Garlic said:


> Alcohol is highly toxic, highly physically addictive, has a low overdose threshold, can cause heart disease, bowel cancer etc., makes some people aggressive. Cannabis has extremely low toxicity, is impossible to overdose on, is not physically addictive, has never directly killed anyone, and very rarely causes aggression or violence.
> 
> Like I said, some people react badly to it. Some, like me, react badly to alcohol. I have found weed very useful for managing my anxiety and depression. Most people don't believe me when I say this.
> 
> If you have a decent supplier it's not laced with anything. And don't you see that this is an argument for legalisation? If it was legal there could be quality control.


Alcohol is highly toxic at high amounts. Don't overdo it. And I would consider it mildly addictive to the non-alcoholics. It's not great for you. But at least I know I'm not going to freak out on it. Heck maybe it would be best to not have any drugs legal. But then what's the fun in that?


----------



## neoshredder

Ravndal said:


> And you don't think alcohol can be unpredictable? Most people does not know their limit, and they can suddenly lose control or don't think they are as drunk as they are - often results in drunk driving.


People should only drink at their house or around their house. That is what I do. Forgot about cabs but they cost so much money.


----------



## Ravndal

neoshredder said:


> Alcohol is highly toxic at high amounts. Don't overdo it. And I would consider it mildly addictive to the non-alcoholics. It's not great for you. *But at least I know I'm not going to freak out on it*. Heck maybe it would be best to not have any drugs legal. But then what's the fun in that?





neoshredder said:


> People should only drink at their house or around their house. *That is what I do*.


That is your problem. "I" this "I" that. You can't think from any other perspective. You think the rest of the world is like you.

Just because you behave decent while effected by alcohol, doesn't mean that everyone else does.

Try to think about the bigger picture. Sometimes you have to make own personal sacrifices.


----------



## neoshredder

Ravndal said:


> That is your problem. "I" this "I" that. You can't think from any other perspective. You think the rest of the world is like you.
> 
> Just because you behave decent while effected by alcohol, doesn't mean that everyone else does.


Not the drugs fault that people don't have common sense. Responsibilty is the key with life. And I'm sure weed will hurt your driving as well. Just don't drive under the influence. Simple as that.


----------



## Ravndal

Responsibility is they key. And while influenced by alcohol you often lose that. While high on pot, you often become more of a coward, and way more passive. Of course you get stupid for a little while, but not in the risk-taking way.

Even simpler: legalize pot. That way the angry and irresponsible drunks can have fun with pot. And those who doesn't enjoy pot (like you) can stick to alcohol, or even better: don't drink or smoke.

Smoking AND drinking makes you just really blotto. And why is that? Because weed is boosting the alcohol in your body. Not the other way around.

Legalization works in Amsterdam.






Watch the whole clip. Not the 30 first seconds.

I have been there myself, and it IS a peaceful and cozy city. I loved it there.


----------



## DavidA

Never tried pot, thank goodness. I'm especially grateful having met people who've had serious side effects - psychotic episodes, etc, after using it. I think it's like walking by a cliff - you might not fall but it's as well to keep well away from the edge!


----------



## Ravndal

DavidA said:


> Never tried pot, thank goodness. I'm especially grateful having met people who've had serious side effects - psychotic episodes, etc, after using it. I think it's like walking by a cliff - you might not fall but it's as well to keep well away from the edge!


Not quite.



> while marijuana went from being a secret shared by a small community of hepcats and beatniks in the 1940s and '50s to a rite of passage for some 70% of youth by the turn of the century, rates of schizophrenia in the U.S. have remained flat, or possibly declined. For as long as it has been tracked, schizophrenia has been found to affect about 1% of the population.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2005559,00.html#ixzz2Yfzd8wWH

And let me add that I have never known anyone who has gotten ill by it. I have known people who have had a bad experience, but nothing more than that. And there is very few people between the age of 16-25 who haven't tried cannabis (of those I have met, and heard by others)


----------



## EricABQ

I have to hold a security clearance for my job so smoking now is not something I can do. 

However, I plan to retire to Washington where the voters had the good sense to legalize it. When that day comes I will happily partake on a daily basis.


----------



## Guest

I view all these "recreational" as opposed to "medicinal" drugs - including alcohol, as really means of escapism. They only offer illusions. They don't actually solve any problems. What good do any of them do you? Maybe the side effects aren't as harmful as, say, cocaine, or heroin, but it seems like the underlying motives for taking all of them are the same (except for those who have become addicted) and THAT is the problem. It seems like the healthier thing to do is learn to cope with life (outside of legitimate medical concerns) in non-pharmaceutical ways. 

Intoxication - whether it be from alcohol, or pot, or who knows what else - is very problematic. Let me present this scenario. You are a parent at home on a Friday night, the kids are in bed, and you and your spouse decide it is time to shake off the cares of the week and light up. Then something happens to the kids - your sharp mind is needed in that situation, but you have been smoking weed and are not on your game. What do you do? 

Real life happens, and it doesn't stop to consider whether your judgment or abilities have been impaired. 

Maybe I am being naive. I just think all "recreational" drug use is dumb. I am not condemning the people who do it, but you can still say that the actions that someone takes are stupid.


----------



## Novelette

A little humor to ease the tension.


----------



## Novelette

For myself, I am predisposed to asthma, so smoking anything is risky.

I drink lightly, and that's good enough for me. For euphoria, I turn to Brahms.


----------



## neoshredder

So I think in terms of safety. Sober>drink lightly>smoking pot>drinking heavy.


----------



## DavidA

Ravndal said:


> Not quite.
> 
> Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2005559,00.html#ixzz2Yfzd8wWH
> 
> And let me add that I have never known anyone who has gotten ill by it. I have known people who have had a bad experience, but nothing more than that. And there is very few people between the age of 16-25 who haven't tried cannabis (of those I have met, and heard by others)


Say what you like. I know people who have been affected by it! Fact!


----------



## Ravndal

DrMike said:


> I view all these "recreational" as opposed to "medicinal" drugs - including alcohol, as really means of escapism. They only offer illusions. They don't actually solve any problems. What good do any of them do you? Maybe the side effects aren't as harmful as, say, cocaine, or heroin, but it seems like the underlying motives for taking all of them are the same (except for those who have become addicted) and THAT is the problem. It seems like the healthier thing to do is learn to cope with life (outside of legitimate medical concerns) in non-pharmaceutical ways.
> 
> Intoxication - whether it be from alcohol, or pot, or who knows what else - is very problematic. Let me present this scenario. You are a parent at home on a Friday night, the kids are in bed, and you and your spouse decide it is time to shake off the cares of the week and light up. Then something happens to the kids - your sharp mind is needed in that situation, but you have been smoking weed and are not on your game. What do you do?
> 
> Real life happens, and it doesn't stop to consider whether your judgment or abilities have been impaired.
> 
> Maybe I am being naive. I just think all "recreational" drug use is dumb. I am not condemning the people who do it, but you can still say that the actions that someone takes are stupid.


I assure you that you don't get that useless, that you can't take care of your kids. If you are used to smoking (im guessing that the parents in the scenario isn't first timers) it is the same as taking a couple of beers. If you are totally useless like in your scenario, that only means that you have smoked to much, and if you are experienced smoker - you know your limit. Same with drinkers. Gotta know your limit.

You are confusing weed with hard drugs.

And if the case is that the parents were first timers, they are really stupid trying out a new drugs while the kids are in the house.


----------



## Ravndal

DavidA said:


> Say what you like. I know people who have been affected by it! Fact!


That may be, but it's far more dangerous balancing on a clip.


----------



## Ravndal

neoshredder said:


> So I think in terms of safety. Sober>drink lightly>smoking pot>drinking heavy.


You're not really at any bigger risk by smoking lightly than drinking lightly. At heavy use comes consequences.


----------



## neoshredder

Ravndal said:


> You're not really at any bigger risk by smoking lightly than drinking lightly. At heavy use comes consequences.


It's harder to measure the amount of THC you've had compared to how much alcohol you have. I'll stick with my alcohol and you can stick with your weed. Deal? Just don't get caught. Which is another risk with weed.


----------



## Pyotr

The legal status of marihuana in this country is confusing. The federal government says it's illegal and yet there's no constitutional amendment stating such, as there was when alcohol was illegal. About a dozen states, including my own, have medicinal marihuana, which is essentially pot for older people (or the terminally ill ) . I could get pot by making an appointment with one of the doctors on the list and saying I had chronic back pain (or insomnia or anxiety any other pain on the list of ailments its approved for). It's estimated that 1 million Americans are using medical marijuana. But this whole system is illegal according to the federal government and they've been know to bust clinics occasionally.


----------



## DavidA

Ravndal said:


> That may be, but it's far more dangerous balancing on a clip.


I think many pot smokers think they are only balancing on a clip (sic)


----------



## DavidA

Ravndal said:


> You're not really at any bigger risk by smoking lightly than drinking lightly. At heavy use comes consequences.


This is the so-called received wisdom. Actually just light use can affect the odd individual. And you never know whether its you!


----------



## Ravndal

Its not like russian roulette. The chances is extremely slim.


----------



## mtmailey

I think it is best used for medicine like in tea ,pill, capsule or tablet forms.Smoking it wastes time to me.The only pot i like is the one i cook food in on the stove.
View attachment 21077


----------



## Cosmos

Everyday?!?!! My own opinion: that sounds like a problem

I'm also 19, and I've only smoked a few times before (maybe once every two months last year). Though it is less harmful in the long run more than tobacco, I wouldn't say that is good enough justification to smoke every day. Besides, I have things to do I don't have time to just blaze that often.


----------



## Novelette

Ravndal said:


> [Of Amsterdam, Netherlands] I have been there myself, and it IS a peaceful and cozy city. I loved it there.


It's a lovely city. I may be mistaken, but wasn't the Netherlands bullied into banning cannabis sales to all non-Dutch residents? I know Belgium was upset that dispensaries set up so close to the Belgian border and the Dutch accommodated their complaints; I did hear that they ultimately prohibited sales to all non-Dutch. It's a very fine city, indeed a very fine country at any rate.

My only complaint about Amsterdam itself is the driving. No I don't mean driving within the city, I mean the thoroughfares to, from, and around the city! I was driving from Amsterdam toward Germany: heading east, every single sign pointed to Amsterdam.

Every exit from the highway led to Amsterdam! "Get off here to go to Amsterdam"; "Get off at the next exit to go to Amsterdam"; "Get off at the exit 25 km ahead to go to Amsterdam"; "Continue ahead 50 km to go to Amsterdam"; "Make a U-turn to go to Amsterdam"; "Dig through the center of the earth to go to Amsterdam"!!!!

Was there a single sign for Apeldoorn? Nope. A single sign for Nijmegen? Nope. All were for Amsterdam... Well, almost all of them. There were also signs every 0,75 km reading "Controle", speeding is basically impossible. :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Ravndal said:


> Its not like russian roulette. The chances is extremely slim.


Well, I don't want even to take a slim chance!


----------



## Guest

I've never directly smoked it, but I've been in small rooms in which others did. My throat is very sensitive to smoke, so I could never handle it directly. I hear good things about pot brownies/cookies; alas, those would be hard on my diabetes!

I have no moral objection to it, and I favor its legalization as long as it's controlled like alcohol.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

What if I'm just not a fan of the idea of inhaling something like sour-smelling smoke or eating something bitter-tasting? Couldn't there be a better way to get the pleasure (or health) effects of pot without the pot? Of course there is, and that's why I prefer other sources of pleasure, namely enjoying the simple things in life.


----------



## Pyotr

Huilunsoittaja said:


> What if I'm just not a fan of the idea of inhaling something like sour-smelling smoke or eating something bitter-tasting? Couldn't there be a better way to get the pleasure (or health) effects of pot without the pot? Of course there is, and that's why I prefer other sources of pleasure, namely enjoying the simple things in life.


I wish I had your common sense and moral backbone when I was your age.


----------



## EricABQ

Pot is one of the simple things in life. It's just a dried pant. Simple.


----------



## Ukko

Huilunsoittaja said:


> What if I'm just not a fan of the idea of inhaling something like sour-smelling smoke or eating something bitter-tasting? Couldn't there be a better way to get the pleasure (or health) effects of pot without the pot? Of course there is, and that's why I prefer other sources of pleasure, namely enjoying the simple things in life.


Pot is not peyote. Why do you think 'pot butter' causes baked goods to taste bitter?


----------



## deggial

EricABQ said:


> Pot is one of the simple things in life. It's just a dried pant. Simple.


quick, edit before someone pokes fun at the typo


----------



## Metalkitsune

neoshredder said:


> Pot sucks. Can't stand it. There's a reason why it's illegal.


Drug free 4 life.

http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/facts/


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Huilunsoittaja said:


> What if I'm just not a fan of the idea of inhaling something like sour-smelling smoke or eating something bitter-tasting? Couldn't there be a better way to get the pleasure (or health) effects of pot without the pot? Of course there is, and that's why I prefer other sources of pleasure, namely enjoying the simple things in life.


Try drinking cannabis tea then and tell us what you think.


----------



## Ryan

Only when I'm driving long journeys or before making phone calls to banks.


----------



## Guest

EricABQ said:


> Pot is one of the simple things in life. It's just a dried pant. Simple.


So is tobacco. And opium is just an extract from poppies. Cyanide naturally occurs in peach pits. I love the thinking that "natural" is good. There were plenty of natural poisons before mankind ever created any in a laboratory.


----------



## EricABQ

DrMike said:


> So is tobacco. And opium is just an extract from poppies. Cyanide naturally occurs in peach pits. I love the thinking that "natural" is good. There were plenty of natural poisons before mankind ever created any in a laboratory.


Wow, bringing up cyanide is a discussion about pot.

At least you are being reasonable.


----------



## Guest

EricABQ said:


> Wow, bringing up cyanide is a discussion about pot.
> 
> At least you are being reasonable.


As an example of how natural is not always good. I was not saying pot is deadly like cyanide, rather that both are found naturally. It was in response to your statement that pot is just a dried plant - with the implication that that makes it simple and nothing to worry about. I am making the point that the fact that it is merely a dried plant in no way guarantees that there is anything simple or safe. And it is not just a dried plant. It isn't the plant at all, but the chemical in the plant. Do you advocate smoking any dried plants? I would recommend against smoking dried poison oak or ivy - I know someone who inhaled smoke from a pile of burning poison oak - it wasn't pretty.


----------



## Ukko

EricABQ said:


> Wow, bringing up cyanide is a discussion about pot.
> 
> At least you are being reasonable.


I dunno about the 'reasonable'. Your post that he quoted doesn't contain 'natural'. Makes _DrMike_'s response a non-sequitur?


----------



## EricABQ

DrMike said:


> Do you advocate smoking any dried plants?


Of course not. Only the ones that have been shown to be pleasurable and relatively harmless. Like marijuana.

Actually, I don't advocate anyone do anything. In the particular and specific case of marijuana I just think adults should be free to use it if they choose to without fear of legal consequences.


----------



## Guest

EricABQ said:


> Of course not. Only the ones that have been shown to be pleasurable and relatively harmless. Like marijuana.
> 
> Actually, I don't advocate anyone do anything. In the particular and specific case of marijuana I just think adults should be free to use it if they choose to without fear of legal consequences.


Yeah, well, in a country where admitting to using the "n" word 30 years ago ruins your career, good luck with that.

I am not for making pot illegal. I wouldn't smoke it even if it were legal. And I would still counsel my children to not smoke it, or tobacco, or drink alcohol, or consume any other such drugs.

At the same time, though, I also have no desire to push for its legalization. Beware what you wish for, though. If pot were legalized throughout the U.S., the government will likely slap a pretty high "sin" tax on it, like it does for cigarettes. I am willing to bet that legalization of pot in the U.S. would lead to a substantially higher cost for the stuff. As I have said in the past - if it is legalized, fine. But I better not have to pay for the consequences of its legalization. If there is eventually discovered to be long-term health effects, I don't want to have to subsidize the healthcare of potheads. I think the consequences of driving while intoxicated, whether it be alcohol, or pot, or whatever, should be even higher - revoking driver's licenses for longer, if not permanently. And causing accidents while under the influence should have tougher penalties. And there should be a ban on suing pot producers if there are long term effects. Everybody should be on notice that they partake of the drug at their own risk, and should anything bad happen, they have only themselves to blame.

Under those conditions, I could be fine with you going and lighting up to your heart's content.


----------



## EricABQ

Other than me being an advocate for legalization, I'm pretty good with most of what you posted there.


----------



## GreenMamba

DrMike said:


> Yeah, well, in a country where admitting to using the "n" word 30 years ago ruins your career, good luck with that.


Not really on topic, but (since you brought it up) it was a bit more that just that.


----------



## Ondine

Hope is not too late to give an advice here. I dedicated many thoughts for posting it. Honesty about advising from personal experience is the only thing I can do. 

The first thing and most important is not to prohibit. Yes, it seems a terrible advice when watching our son or daughter doing such a thing. My background is important here for understanding this: 

I am a woman that likes to explore, to experiment. Disobedience has been part of my temper with the natural consequences. But consequences assumed with that same temper do not do too much harm if not at all as not having regret but reflection.

You have to advice with love and serenity not to do that: 'If you keep walking that path, not so very good things will happen' or something like that but keep in mind that he needs to experience the consequences in order to grow and mature. Point him the consequence as soon as it happens, again, with love and serenity. Maybe he will ask for help. 

Obedience can keep people far from trouble but trouble makes people grow. As a teacher of young people, I encourage 'disobedience' assuming consequence.


----------



## Guest

^I don't know if I agree with most of this. Yes, you can definitely grow and learn from mistakes, but in many, if not most instances, you probably are better off never having made the mistake. Take overreating. Is it better for someone to simply eat themselves into oblivion, suffer a heart attack and nearly die, in order to learn the negative consequences? I think most people would say it is better to just live healthy in the first place. Is it better to go out and steal and spend time in jail, or to never steal in the first place? 

Disobedience is more often than not a bad thing. Disobedience to injustice can be good. But disobedience to wise advice is not good, and I would never encourage it, as a general rule. I would let my child know that I disapprove of something, let them know why, and let them know what the consequences will be should they choose to disobey me. Then I would let them choose for themselves. If they choose to be disobedient, then I will mete out the consequence, just as I had warned.


----------



## Tommie

I smoked pot for the better part of thirty years ... it was my "ball & chain", so to speak.

I had, for much of that time, hoped to only "enjoy" it on the weekends, or at least wait until after the work day.

Dr. Andrew Weil, in writing about using substances or any other activity that seems to make us feel more complete or at ease, feels that what is most important is one's RELATIONSHIP with an activity or substance (pot, alcohol, sugar, shopping, gambling, sex, eating ... the list can and does go on and on).
In my case, Dr. Weil would ask me: Tom, can you go without pot today, this week, this month and be OK without it? How is your relationship with pot effecting the rest of your life (your responsibilities as a husband, a father, an employee, your health, etc.)?

There are many more activities that, by themselves are more harmful than pot ... you can't, for example, O.D. on pot ... in fact, one can function quite well, basically, while high, once one is accustomed to the effects and experience.
But, like alot of other things, one's sense of well being and mind-state can become dependent on it ... one can be fooled into thinking that one needs to have (in my case pot) to feel complete.

Spiritually wisdom warns us against needing anything that the world has to offer for a sense of fulfillment and completeness ... happiness is an inside job ... 'heaven is within us' .

In short, what is your son's relationship with pot? Does he need to have it to be happy and at ease? Or can he "take it or leave it", and not miss a beat if it's not available for what ever reason? 
Is it effecting his life in a negative way, or is he able to attend to his life's responsibilities?

Again, as Dr. Weil would ask: does he have a healthy relationship with pot ?

I was never able to achieve this healthy relationship with pot, so at age 47 (09/25/2005) I gave it up for good  It was the best thing I finally ever did ... all the activities that I used to enjoy while high, I still enjoy ( I had often wondered if that would be the case ) ... I am now a better husband and father, since I no longer am distracted with maintaining my relationship with pot ... plus, with all the extra money I have that otherwise would have gone 'up in smoke', I can afford my nice collection of opera and classical music DVDs and Blu-rays along with a nice new sound system with which to enjoy them.

Sobriety ... don't knock it 'til you've tried it


----------



## millionrainbows

I've heard that pot has some unpleasant side-effects, like shortness of pants.

Here's some sage advice: if you're taking an antibiotic, don't smoke pot. It can cause rapid heartbeat. Antibiotics are weird enough by themselves.


----------



## millionrainbows

Remember: You're a human. You can't fly. 
And don't try to remove your face; it's attached securely. 
Avoid mirrors.
Don't get on freeways; use service roads whenever possible. 
When driving, always keep your eyes open. 
Always keep a bottle of Visine in the fridge. 
Ozium is highly recommended. 
Bongs and large water-pipes are for home use only.
Avoid drooling in the presence of law enforcement.
When in public, it's a good idea to wear your photo I.D. on a secure chain around your neck, and if in a group, tether-together like mountain climbers, using approved rope.
When on mushrooms, remember: you're not dead, only your ego is.
Don't try to wash your face on the stovetop.


----------



## julianoq

I am 28 years old now. I smoked pot during 2 years of my life, from 16 to 18. I am very glad that my family never accepted it and made me get treatment with a therapist. One day I was convinced that pot was a problem in my life and it was causing me amotivational syndrome. My only wish those days was to smoke, listen to music and play computer games. I quit pot and it was resolved, I entered a college and proceeded with my life.

I don't know if marijuana is causing problems to your son, but I believe that even if he is not having problems pot doesn't add anything to his life. I think the best option is to make him understand this in a rational way, and a specialized therapist can help a lot with this.


----------



## kv466

Wow,...this dainged thread is still kickin'?! Gonna have to twist me one up and sit and read some of the crap those who have never tried it love to write. Don't worry, Mikey, I'll skip your posts as they will get neither of us anywhere.


----------



## millionrainbows

Don't Bogart that joint, kv466!_ Whhhhhhhhttttttt!_ Ahhhhhhhh......:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

More sage advice for pot smokers:

Do not attempt to pole-vault higher than 12 feet.
Do not stick your head into a gallon can of pork and beans
Don't stand on your head on a unicycle on a tightrope
Don't do advanced calculus
Don't work on televisions or other appliances


----------



## brianvds

I haven't smoked pot in many years. In my younger days I indulged some, and had a great time. But ever stronger cultivars came onto the market, that took much of the fun out of it, because instead of just giving one the giggles, munchies and a few deep insights into the nature of life, the universe and everything, they sort of knocked you into semi-stupor, during which mild hallucinations would sometimes occur. Well, there's no fun in that.

This is of course one of the many unintended consequences of prohibition: you don't really know what it is you are buying, and there is a strong incentive for growers to come up with stronger cultivars, or mix who-knows-what into their product.


----------



## DavidA

brianvds said:


> I haven't smoked pot in many years. In my younger days I indulged some, and had a great time. But ever stronger cultivars came onto the market, that took much of the fun out of it, because instead of just giving one the giggles, munchies and a few deep insights into the nature of life, the universe and everything, they sort of knocked you into semi-stupor, during which mild hallucinations would sometimes occur. Well, there's no fun in that.
> 
> This is of course one of the many unintended consequences of prohibition: you don't really know what it is you are buying, and there is a strong incentive for growers to come up with stronger cultivars, or mix who-knows-what into their product.


deep in sights into the meaning of life? Come off it! All drugs do is send a lie to your brain.


----------



## Chrythes

DavidA said:


> deep in sights into the meaning of life? Come off it! All drugs do is send a lie to your brain.


But really this is something you try to figure out. I do occasionally smoke pot, but during the past year it changed from being mildly amusing and relaxing to anxiety and over analyzing conversations/movement/words/goals etc. Not sure if it's due to the people I usually smoke with, the pot itself or the constant feeling of unfulfillment, but I am thinking about quitting it for good until I can actually know what I am buying and what I am going to experience.

The realizations you experience can seem like the treasures of your unconsciousness, but I think they are more often the product of false association and overestimation of the meaning of unimportant events.


----------



## Garlic

DavidA said:


> deep in sights into the meaning of life? Come off it! All drugs do is send a lie to your brain.


Utter nonsense. 
Certain drugs (not so much cannabis) can indeed provide profound insights about reality, the universe, the nature of the self, and other things that can't be put into words.
If you have experienced this, you will never see things in the same way again.
These things shatter illusions, often in a devastating way.

Eta -
There are people who display delusions after taking such substances. But they tend to be people with a propensity towards magical thinking anyway.


----------



## brianvds

DavidA said:


> deep in sights into the meaning of life? Come off it! All drugs do is send a lie to your brain.


Yes, but they seem very deep while I'm high. 

Anyway, I don't need pot for that anymore: nowadays everyone knows that the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything is 42.


----------



## Ukko

brianvds said:


> Yes, but they seem very deep while I'm high.
> 
> Anyway, I don't need pot for that anymore: nowadays everyone knows that the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything is 42.


Jackie Robinson had some admirable traits, but philosophical guru wasn't one of them.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> deep in sights into the meaning of life? Come off it! All drugs do is send a lie to your brain.


Wow, that sounds bigoted. That attitude does a great disservice to the American Indian and Rastafarians, who used peyote & cannabis as religious sacraments. I wish people would respect other races & religions. After all, this is Amerika.


----------



## Guest

kv466 said:


> Wow,...this dainged thread is still kickin'?! Gonna have to twist me one up and sit and read some of the crap those who have never tried it love to write. Don't worry, Mikey, I'll skip your posts as they will get neither of us anywhere.


Oh, there are all kinds of things I pass judgment on that I have never tried. I reject the notion that you have to have tried something to comment on it. Seems to have not caused me any harm in terms of crack and meth.

Whatever the reasons or the justifications for the illegal use of pot (commenting on those of you who don't live in Colorado or Washington), your habit does help subsidize the drug trade. It doesn't matter if you prefer the quality stuff grown up in Northern California - it is the overall demand for illegal drugs that drives up the prices, and thus lines the pockets of the drug cartels. The more affluent recreational users who like their designer pot and their affectations at rebellion may think they are above the street trash pushed by the lower class, but it is all one and the same. For the same reason, Iran gets rich off of the sale of oil because the demand from countries like the USA, even if we don't directly buy from them, still increases prices globally, thus indirectly benefiting them.

Maybe marijuana is one of the more harmless drugs. But as I said before, it is just an artificial coping mechanism that feeds on the desire of those who don't want to search for real solutions for what they need to cope with. That is never healthy, because eventually, when you push problems aside, they come back even larger. And then you need a bigger fix to cope - and that is where dependency kicks in.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Wow, that sounds bigoted. That attitude does a great disservice to the American Indian and Rastafarians, who used peyote & cannabis as religious sacraments. I wish people would respect other races & religions. After all, this is Amerika.


Yeah, I also denounce the ancient Mayan and Aztec religious practice of human sacrifice.


----------



## millionrainbows

DrMike said:


> Maybe marijuana is one of the more harmless drugs. But as I said before, it is just an artificial coping mechanism that feeds on the desire of those who don't want to search for real solutions for what they need to cope with.


I don't hear anyone decrying the recreational use of alcohol in bars. Marijuana is medicinal, less toxic than booze, and can be used recreationally and socially. Dr. Mike sounds more and more like he's in collusion with law enforcement.

The wrong target. It's these illegal males drinking and driving who are killing people, not pot smokers.


----------



## millionrainbows

DrMike said:


> Yeah, I also denounce the ancient Mayan and Aztec religious practice of human sacrifice.


So what? We have human sacrifice too.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I don't hear anyone decrying the recreational use of alcohol in bars. Marijuana is medicinal, less toxic than booze, and can be used recreationally and socially. Dr. Mike sounds more and more like he's in collusion with law enforcement.
> 
> The wrong target. It's these illegal males drinking and driving who are killing people, not pot smokers.


Everything about pot, I think the same about alcohol. When I lived in Ohio, whenever a restaurant wanted a liquor license, it had to be put to a vote by the town. I always voted no. I know alcohol will never again be made illegal. But I still don't like it. I always laugh at the notion of "recreational" and "social" drug and alcohol use. Socially? Have we become so pathetic that we can't interact with others without being intoxicated? And yeah, mixing alcohol with trying to meet/date others has such a sterling record. Always blows my mind that a woman would seek out a man by going to a place where he would be drunk and at his worst.

Reminds me of a great bumper sticker I once saw: "Beer - bringing ugly people together for centuries!"

P.S. As a person who has frequently been the sober person at a gathering of people drinking alcohol, I have to say: You all are not so charming as the alcohol makes you think you are.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> So what? We have human sacrifice too.


I have no clue what religion you practice, but I sure hope it is under FBI surveillance.


----------



## brianvds

millionrainbows said:


> Wow, that sounds bigoted. That attitude does a great disservice to the American Indian and Rastafarians, who used peyote & cannabis as religious sacraments. I wish people would respect other races & religions. After all, this is Amerika.


Yes, but keep in mind that they didn't use the stuff recreationally, as I did. What I did would, in their societies, be the equivalent of some kid getting drunk on communion wine. So in defense of DrMike, I don't think he meant any racial or religious disrespect.


----------



## brianvds

DrMike said:


> It doesn't matter if you prefer the quality stuff grown up in Northern California - it is the overall demand for illegal drugs that drives up the prices,


It is the fact that it is illegal that drives up the prices.



> Maybe marijuana is one of the more harmless drugs. But as I said before, it is just an artificial coping mechanism that feeds on the desire of those who don't want to search for real solutions for what they need to cope with.


Good heavens, no, it's nothing as serious as that. It's just fun. Well, that was my personal experience with it.


----------



## brianvds

millionrainbows said:


> Dr. Mike sounds more and more like he's in collusion with law enforcement.


Evidently, he is not in collusion with THESE law enforcers:

http://www.leap.cc/





> The wrong target. It's these illegal males drinking and driving who are killing people, not pot smokers.


Yup. In any event, it is the illegal status of drugs that drives up the prices and that is responsible for the whole criminal underworld that grew up around it. Apparently we learned nothing at all from alcohol Prohibition. Nothing new there: people never learn, and keep on hammering their heads against the same old walls.


----------



## Guest

brianvds said:


> Evidently, he is not in collusion with THESE law enforcers:
> 
> http://www.leap.cc/
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. In any event, it is the illegal status of drugs that drives yup the prices and that is responsible for the whole criminal underworld that grew up around it. Apparently we learned nothing at all from alcohol Prohibition. Nothing new there: people never learn, and keep on hammering their heads against the same old walls.


Criminal underworlds are always there - they pick up new rackets, but they are not dependent on any one. They always find some new way to make money. Case in point - they did away with prohibition, and yet the mafia remained. So to blame the criminal underworld on making drugs and intoxicants illegal is not really looking too in depth. Some operate by providing illegal items, some have other rackets. Some use the sale of drugs only as a means to an end. After all, the mafia didn't emerge as a bootlegging operation. It was an existing criminal enterprise that saw a good way of bringing in revenue by selling alcohol when it was illegal.

So can we shut down all arguments for making gun ownership illegal by saying that if you do, you will be responsible for the criminal underworld that will grow up around selling guns? There are any number of other examples that you could use here. Simply because people will obtain a commodity through illegal means is no legitimate reason for making something legal. Imagine how kids could blackmail parents then.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Pot is illegal, and it makes one into a drooling idiot - two reasons I don't want to have anything to do with it. As well as with religious practices of Rastafarians, ancient Aztecs and Mayas and the like. Plus, I do not think we need any more drugs around than we already have.


----------



## neoshredder

Tbh I'm just bitter that it didn't work well for me. If I was enjoying it, I might change my tune about it. Plus the fear of getting caught is always there.


----------



## norman bates




----------



## millionrainbows

I think pot should be legalized, if alcohol is. Have you ever noticed, there's not a "marijuana anonymous?" Pot is not a narcotic, so Narcanon doesn't count.

I think what people (parents) are most worried about is their teenagers smoking it, and during their crucial developmental years. I agree it should be for adults 21 and over.

Pot is a drug which is "counter-intuitive" to our aggressive culture; it "takes the edge off" and makes people more passive. Not a good thing for football players, and the aggression needed to "launch into adulthood," kicking and scratching for the almighty dollar.


----------



## millionrainbows

SiegendesLicht said:


> Pot is illegal, and it makes one into a drooling idiot - two reasons I don't want to have anything to do with it. As well as with religious practices of Rastafarians, ancient Aztecs and Mayas and the like. Plus, I do not think we need any more drugs around than we already have.


Neither do I want to be a perfectly-groomed business-suited drone. Aztecs and Mayas were mentioned earlier in reference to human sacrifice. My response seemed to go over the habitual mindsets of the respondents. We send our young people off to *war*...it's the same thing; human sacrifice, only clothed in righteous patriotism. Have I insulted most of you conservatives? so sorry!


----------



## millionrainbows

brianvds said:


> Yup. In any event, it is the illegal status of drugs that drives up the prices and that is responsible for the whole criminal underworld that grew up around it. Apparently we learned nothing at all from alcohol Prohibition. Nothing new there: people never learn, and keep on hammering their heads against the same old walls.


No, I meant "illegal immigrants" from Mexico; free-ranging males who are raised in a heavier-drinking culture, who are finally making decent money, driving their first cars, and letting-off steam. They are always the ones who leave the scene of the crime, after running-over and killing somebody.


----------



## hreichgott

Never tried it and never had a good reason to. People on pot are really boring. Music is much better (and cheaper).


----------



## brianvds

DrMike said:


> Criminal underworlds are always there - they pick up new rackets, but they are not dependent on any one. They always find some new way to make money. Case in point - they did away with prohibition, and yet the mafia remained. So to blame the criminal underworld on making drugs and intoxicants illegal is not really looking too in depth. Some operate by providing illegal items, some have other rackets. Some use the sale of drugs only as a means to an end. After all, the mafia didn't emerge as a bootlegging operation. It was an existing criminal enterprise that saw a good way of bringing in revenue by selling alcohol when it was illegal.
> 
> So can we shut down all arguments for making gun ownership illegal by saying that if you do, you will be responsible for the criminal underworld that will grow up around selling guns? There are any number of other examples that you could use here. Simply because people will obtain a commodity through illegal means is no legitimate reason for making something legal. Imagine how kids could blackmail parents then.


You don't need some special reason to make something legal. You need a reason to make it illegal.

In the case of some items, such as drugs, the prohibition is doing more harm than the drugs themselves ever did. That the war on drugs has been an absolute disaster for all involved is by now well known.

Me, I couldn't possibly care less what other people drink, smoke or inject. I'm just not all that authoritarian. To those who want prohibitions on this and that and the other thing, all I can say is "good luck with that."


----------



## millionrainbows

I think people's sobriety is extremely boring.


----------



## brianvds

millionrainbows said:


> I think pot should be legalized, if alcohol is.


Yes, especially considering that pot does less harm than alcohol.



> I think what people (parents) are most worried about is their teenagers smoking it, and during their crucial developmental years. I agree it should be for adults 21 and over.


A legal age for use is already the case with alcohol, and it would be the same with any other drug. Not sure it helps much; kids seem not to have much trouble getting hold of booze. But then, they don't have any trouble getting hold of illegal drugs either. The only difference is that with booze (and any other legal drug) there is at least some form of quality control, so that you know what it is you are buying, and the price is much lower, so that addicts don't need to go hit granny over the head for drug money.

Anyway, it is the job of parents to look after their kids, not the state. If parents fail to teach their kids proper values, or to raise them in such a way that they can deal with life's darker temptations, there is actually preciously little that the government can do about it. I see this every day in my job (I'm a school teacher).


----------



## millionrainbows

Yeah, right on brother! LEGALIZE POT! Screw the War on Drugs! We want our FREEDOM! Keep your nose outta everybody else's business! We have our Constitutional rights! Get lost, Republicans! GROW YOUR OWN! Grow your hair out! Drunks against Mad Mothers! Revolution!


----------



## mtmailey

millionrainbows said:


> I think people's sobriety is extremely boring.


I find those who are who are not sober weak,trouble & not interesting weed smoking are boring they just want to smoke then walk around high then do stupid stuff like steal then sell what they sell in the streets for more drugs.


----------



## GreenMamba

Weed smokers don't have much of a reputation for theft, which actually takes a bit of initiative. My main problem with pot smokers is they tend to write in semi-coherent, run-on sentences.


----------



## millionrainbows

mtmailey said:


> I find those who are who are not sober weak,trouble & not interesting weed smoking are boring they just want to smoke then walk around high then do stupid stuff like steal then sell what they sell in the streets for more drugs.


Man, you just don't know how to have fun!


----------



## millionrainbows

GreenMamba said:


> Weed smokers don't have much of a reputation for theft, which actually takes a bit of initiative. My main problem with pot smokers is they tend to write in semi-coherent, run-on sentences.


Well, hey, man, it's not like they're flying passenger jets or doing brain surgery! We have drug testing now! Don't worry so much!


----------



## millionrainbows

Let 'em smoke their weed! You do your own thing, and leave everybody alone! You anti-drug people are becoming a real nuisance!


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Wow, that sounds bigoted. That attitude does a great disservice to the American Indian and Rastafarians, who used peyote & cannabis as religious sacraments. I wish people would respect other races & religions. After all, this is Amerika.


Why is telling the simple truth classed as bigoted? That is medical fact! Period!


----------



## DavidA

brianvds said:


> Yes, especially considering that pot does less harm than alcohol.
> 
> A legal age for use is already the case with alcohol, and it would be the same with any other drug. Not sure it helps much; kids seem not to have much trouble getting hold of booze. But then, they don't have any trouble getting hold of illegal drugs either. The only difference is that with booze (and any other legal drug) there is at least some form of quality control, so that you know what it is you are buying, and the price is much lower, so that addicts don't need to go hit granny over the head for drug money.
> 
> Anyway, it is the job of parents to look after their kids, not the state. If parents fail to teach their kids proper values, or to raise them in such a way that they can deal with life's darker temptations, there is actually preciously little that the government can do about it. I see this every day in my job (I'm a school teacher).


Yes, but misuse of alcohol does tremendous harm. A bit like saying that a kick on the shin is less harmful than a kick in the head.


----------



## neoshredder

millionrainbows said:


> Let 'em smoke their weed! You do your own thing, and leave everybody alone! You anti-drug people are becoming a real nuisance!


It's illegal though.


----------



## brianvds

DavidA said:


> Yes, but misuse of alcohol does tremendous harm. A bit like saying that a kick on the shin is less harmful than a kick in the head.


I quite agree that alcohol, and many other drugs, do a lot of harm. I know from personal experience: my mother was an alcoholic. It's just that on the whole, prohibition does even more harm without doing much to reduce the harm caused by drugs.


----------



## DavidA

brianvds said:


> I quite agree that alcohol, and many other drugs, do a lot of harm. I know from personal experience: my mother was an alcoholic. It's just that on the whole, prohibition does even more harm without doing much to reduce the harm caused by drugs.


That is not so, of course. It's a bit like the speed limit on a road. It doesn't stop some people speeding but it does keep it in check.


----------



## Garlic

There is blood on the hands of the prohibitionists. Every death from impure heroin, bad pills, or deadly substances missold as drugs is an inevitable result of prohibition. This is unacceptable.


----------



## Guest

brianvds said:


> Yes, especially considering that pot does less harm than alcohol.


That is a pretty useless statement. By what parameters are you measuring? First of all, given that alcohol is legal, and pot isn't, you have a lot more alcohol consumers. So in terms of sheer numbers, of course alcohol is probably doing more harm than pot. Then there is the issue of pot being illegal, so it is going to be harder to get accurate statistics. A better way to measure something like this would be comparing "harm" caused by pot users as a percentage of total pot use, and do the same for alcohol.

For example, if pot were legalized, might we see an increase in pot-related traffic accidents? Simply stating that alcohol causes more harm than pot sounds good, but I don't know how you could back up such a statement with facts.

People who become alcoholics do all kinds of things, as well, to get money for booze. Alcohol isn't necessarily cheap. The crime part you refer to has more to do with the economic circumstances of the user than the price of the commodity. As I said before, you are probably kidding yourself if you think the price of pot will drop precipitously if it were legalized. We already know that many states that are mulling over the idea of legalizing it are doing so partly over the increased revenues they could generate by taxing it. Then there would be the regulations for growing and producing it. It might be slightly cheaper, but I think after the government gets its hands on it, it is going to be plenty expensive.

I agree - parents need to take responsibility, and all too many have abdicated their roles in raising and instructing their children, preferring instead to let the state do it. These days, everybody wants more rights, while at the same time they want less responsibilities and consequences. They don't comprehend that they all go together. Having rights doesn't mean you don't have responsibilities, it means that, instead of others being responsible for you, you have to be responsible for yourself.

And that is where I have the problem. If we were to legalize pot, or other drugs, and people were willing to take responsibility for their actions, I would have no problem. But people don't. They increasingly view the government as a guarantor against all consequences and responsibilities, so that they can freely do whatever the hell they want, and the government - i.e. everybody else - cleans up the mess. Thus it isn't enough that we would let people have their free drugs. We have to provide clean needles and methadone clinics for those addicted to harsher narcotics. I don't know what unintended consequences would fall out of legalizing pot, but you can bet there will be some, and I, Joe Taxpayer, will have to foot at least part of that bill.


----------



## Guest

Garlic said:


> There is blood on the hands of the prohibitionists. Every death from impure heroin, bad pills, or deadly substances missold as drugs is an inevitable result of prohibition. This is unacceptable.


Nobody is making the people take those drugs. This is a ridiculous accusation. If you are too stupid to stay away from a potentially hazardous substance that is already illegal, then none of the blame lies with me.


----------



## Garlic

DrMike said:


> Nobody is making the people take those drugs. This is a ridiculous accusation. If you are too stupid to stay away from a potentially hazardous substance that is already illegal, then none of the blame lies with me.


You completely missed my point, which is that contamination, not the drugs themselves, is responsible for a lot of drug related deaths. With regulation this could be avoidable.

"Personal responsibility" is code for selfish individualism. People get where they are because of what happens to them in their lives, not because of moral strength or weakness. Addiction is an illness and should be treated as such. Would you prefer addicts are just left to die?


----------



## Garlic

DrMike said:


> That is a pretty useless statement. By what parameters are you measuring? First of all, given that alcohol is legal, and pot isn't, you have a lot more alcohol consumers. So in terms of sheer numbers, of course alcohol is probably doing more harm than pot. Then there is the issue of pot being illegal, so it is going to be harder to get accurate statistics. A better way to measure something like this would be comparing "harm" caused by pot users as a percentage of total pot use, and do the same for alcohol


I don't know how many deaths a year are directly due to alcohol use, but I'd guess it's in the millions. The number of deaths per year _directly_ caused by cannabis is zero.


----------



## Guest

Garlic said:


> You completely missed my point, which is that contamination, not the drugs themselves, is responsible for a lot of drug related deaths. With regulation this could be avoidable.
> 
> "Personal responsibility" is code for selfish individualism. People get where they are because of what happens to them in their lives, not because of moral strength or weakness. Addiction is an illness and should be treated as such. Would you prefer addicts are just left to die?


Right - people are dying from drugs, and it is the government's fault, since they don't make sure they aren't contaminated. Personal responsibility is just that - you take responsibility for what you do, and not look to everybody but yourself for blame. Addiction is an illness. And I don't want addicts to die. And I also don't want to flood the market with a cheap supply of what they are addicted to.

But while I would try to help people, it is not my responsibility to ensure that the whole world is getting their addictive substances cheaply and free of hazardous components. Don't want to take potentially contaminated drugs? Here is a tip. Don't take ANY illegal drugs. Don't want to go that route? Sobriety isn't your thing? Fine, but caveat emptor. You have no "right" to safe drugs. Ideally, the government would have no hand in it whatsoever. If you want to take them, you do it at your own risk. But you are expressing the exact reason why I will not support their legalization in practice, even if I am not opposed to drug legalization in principle. You don't just want them legal, you also want my tax dollars to pay for the government to give you your drugs all safe and clean. I should be responsible for you getting high. And in terms of government controlling our lives, I don't see that as any better than where we currently are at.


----------



## Garlic

If you're so against government controlling people's lives why do you want to keep drugs illegal? How dare the government deny me the right to put whatever I want in my body?

And I'm sure you know that not all illegal drugs are addictive. And some are not harmful at all if used responsibly. Unfortunately, the least harmful drugs are demonised just as much as the most harmful ones. So young people who realise they've been lied to about one drug might make the same assumption about another one that is far more dangerous.


----------



## Guest

Garlic said:


> If you're so against government controlling people's lives why do you want to keep drugs illegal? How dare the government deny me the right to put whatever I want in my body?
> 
> And I'm sure you know that not all illegal drugs are addictive. And some are not harmful at all if used responsibly. Unfortunately, the least harmful drugs are demonised just as much as the most harmful ones. So young people who realise they've been lied to about one drug might make the same assumption about another one that is far more dangerous.


I've explained why I currently want to keep drugs illegal - because, what is most likely to happen if they are legalized is that the government is going to be controlling them the other way. So if there is going to be government control anyways (which is what you want, with regulation and inspections), then I'd rather just not have them legal. If you truly were going to legalize them and then I don't have to pay for them in any way, shape, or form, then fine. But that isn't what you want. You not only want the government to not deny them to you, you also want them to ensure that you have good drugs.

Yes, I know that there is a wide variety of drugs. But regardless of their level of danger, they are all just as superfluous and not essential. The responsible thing is to not take them at all. What assumptions people make about them is also outside of my responsibility. I can't control what people assume. Again, you take all drugs at your own risk.

My parents told me Santa Claus was real when I was a kid. When I grew up and found out he wasn't, I didn't assume that everything else they told me was false. There are legitimate concerns with ANY drug use. You can rationalize it away all you want with your degrees of harm, but ANYTHING you put in your body can be harmful under certain circumstances. When you get into drugs and chemicals that are not necessary for survival, then things get even more problematic, and you have to start doing cost/benefit comparisons.

You want marijuana legal, but you don't just want it legal. You want for every joint that you light up to have the federal seal of approval - this pot has been inspected by the Surgeon General and found to be completely free of harmful additives. Why? Well, you still want someone else to shoulder the responsibility for your actions. That way, down the road, if it is found that pot actually does have some harmful side effects, you can then sue the government for not sufficiently protecting you from yourself.


----------



## Guest

At heart, I am a partial libertarian living in a country that in practice is becoming more statist. I would love to see more personal liberty afforded to citizens, but I know that, should something like that actually happen, the statists in power, in both parties, are not going to completely relinquish their hold, and we probably won't end up with a net increase in liberty, rather freedom in one area will likely be subverted by increased government control in another. And so my libertarian tendencies are tempered by my pessimistic estimation of the motives of our elected officials. If my choice is the government control I now know, versus some different control, I will stick with the devil I know, because changing government control almost always, invariably, means increased government control. And that is why, as things currently stand, I couldn't support legalizing pot, because I am too afraid that all the proponents are only pushing it for selfish reasons and could care less what strings get attached - they only care about the ends, and not the means that get them to those ends.


----------



## DavidA

Garlic said:


> There is blood on the hands of the prohibitionists. Every death from impure heroin, bad pills, or deadly substances missold as drugs is an inevitable result of prohibition. This is unacceptable.


But it is even more unacceptable to legalise addictive substances which ultimately destroy the body. Frankly this argument does not make sense. Here we have highly dangerous substances and you are talking about legalising them. Does a young man then go to his doctor and say 'I want to get addicted to heroin would you give me some?' And if the doctor refuses then is he to to blame if the young man goes by someone elsewhere? This is simply not rational.


----------



## Garlic

DavidA said:


> But it is even more unacceptable to legalise addictive substances which ultimately destroy the body. Frankly this argument does not make sense. Here we have highly dangerous substances and you are talking about legalising them. Does a young man then go to his doctor and say 'I want to get addicted to heroin would you give me some?' And if the doctor refuses then is he to to blame if the young man goes by someone elsewhere? This is simply not rational.


Ideally genuinely dangerous drugs would only be available to those who already have a problem. So they could get access to uncontaminated drugs, clean needles etc., while they are helped to curtail their drug use. The alternative is letting more people die from bad heroin (heroin in its pure form is highly addictive but unlikely to kill you), HIV and other diseases caused by poor drug hygiene.

As I said, not all drugs are addictive or even harmful at all if used intelligently. LSD, psilocybin and DMT to name a few. These are illegal for moralistic reasons rather than because of any harm they may cause. They are safer (and more potentially beneficial to the user) than both alcohol and cannabis.


----------



## Op.123

I never smoke it.


----------



## Ukko

Burroughs said:


> I never smoke it.


Aha! Another baker.


----------



## brianvds

DrMike said:


> That is a pretty useless statement. By what parameters are you measuring? First of all, given that alcohol is legal, and pot isn't, you have a lot more alcohol consumers. So in terms of sheer numbers, of course alcohol is probably doing more harm than pot. Then there is the issue of pot being illegal, so it is going to be harder to get accurate statistics. A better way to measure something like this would be comparing "harm" caused by pot users as a percentage of total pot use, and do the same for alcohol.


Pot, or at least its use, is already de facto legal in some countries. It doesn't seem to be doing much harm, as far as I can tell.



> People who become alcoholics do all kinds of things, as well, to get money for booze. Alcohol isn't necessarily cheap. The crime part you refer to has more to do with the economic circumstances of the user than the price of the commodity.


Drug-related crime actually has relatively little to do with the users, and tends to consist of shoot-outs between rival smuggling gangs who have no recourse to law to settle business disputes. People who are badly addicted do of course sometimes turn to crime to fund their addiction, partly because illegal drugs are extremely expensive compared to legal ones.



> As I said before, you are probably kidding yourself if you think the price of pot will drop precipitously if it were legalized.


Is alcohol in America cheaper today than it was during Prohibition? That might give us a clue. What's more, pot is far easier to produce: anyone can do it and you need no specialist knowledge or equipment.



> We already know that many states that are mulling over the idea of legalizing it are doing so partly over the increased revenues they could generate by taxing it. Then there would be the regulations for growing and producing it. It might be slightly cheaper, but I think after the government gets its hands on it, it is going to be plenty expensive.


Which is one more reason why the government should perhaps to some extent get its nose out of people private business.

Taxing substances works to some extent, but you are of course right in that if they tax it too highly, it will simply create a market for untaxed pot (or whatever). Here in South Africa, the government has levied ever higher taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and the result has been predictable: there is no a lively black market for non-taxed cigarettes and alcohol, often with faked brand names and often containing who-knows-what besides alcohol and tobacco.



> I agree - parents need to take responsibility, and all too many have abdicated their roles in raising and instructing their children, preferring instead to let the state do it. These days, everybody wants more rights, while at the same time they want less responsibilities and consequences. They don't comprehend that they all go together. Having rights doesn't mean you don't have responsibilities, it means that, instead of others being responsible for you, you have to be responsible for yourself.


Agreed.



> Thus it isn't enough that we would let people have their free drugs. We have to provide clean needles and methadone clinics for those addicted to harsher narcotics. I don't know what unintended consequences would fall out of legalizing pot, but you can bet there will be some, and I, Joe Taxpayer, will have to foot at least part of that bill.


As far as I know, this kind of harm reduction programs turned out cheaper than draconian law enforcement, though I'm not too sure.


----------



## brianvds

DrMike said:


> I've explained why I currently want to keep drugs illegal - because, what is most likely to happen if they are legalized is that the government is going to be controlling them the other way. So if there is going to be government control anyways (which is what you want, with regulation and inspections), then I'd rather just not have them legal. If you truly were going to legalize them and then I don't have to pay for them in any way, shape, or form, then fine. But that isn't what you want. You not only want the government to not deny them to you, you also want them to ensure that you have good drugs.


Doing it this way is cheaper than draconian law enforcement and causes less harm to society. This is after all how it is already done for some drugs, and it seems to work reasonably well.



> You want marijuana legal, but you don't just want it legal. You want for every joint that you light up to have the federal seal of approval - this pot has been inspected by the Surgeon General and found to be completely free of harmful additives. Why? Well, you still want someone else to shoulder the responsibility for your actions. That way, down the road, if it is found that pot actually does have some harmful side effects, you can then sue the government for not sufficiently protecting you from yourself.


In the case of currently legal drugs, the industries are taxed and thus probably foot the bill for the enforcement of regulations themselves.

Whether anything at all should be regulated is of course another question, about which libertarians and statists have been arguing for centuries. What I find curiously incongruous about your ideas is that my impression is that you are at heart a libertarian, yet you want government to tax me to fund its program of enforcing draconian laws that have done extensive harm to society.

Next thing thing you'll tell us that porn should be illegal too...


----------



## brianvds

Garlic said:


> Ideally genuinely dangerous drugs would only be available to those who already have a problem. So they could get access to uncontaminated drugs, clean needles etc., while they are helped to curtail their drug use. The alternative is letting more people die from bad heroin (heroin in its pure form is highly addictive but unlikely to kill you), HIV and other diseases caused by poor drug hygiene.


Part of the problem with just letting the addicts die of AIDS is that before they die, they spread the disease to their innocent wives, thus harm reduction programs are by no means just for the benefits of the addicts.



> As I said, not all drugs are addictive or even harmful at all if used intelligently. LSD, psilocybin and DMT to name a few. These are illegal for moralistic reasons rather than because of any harm they may cause. They are safer (and more potentially beneficial to the user) than both alcohol and cannabis.


And being addicted is not necessarily debilitating. Lots of people are hopelessly addicted to tobacco but can live productive lives because they can get hold of their drug reasonably cheaply and don't need to live a furtive, underground existence.

In Victorian Britain, opium in the politically correct form of laudanum was perfectly legal, and Queen Vicky herself was a user (and quite probably thoroughly addicted to it too). This didn't exactly make the British empire fall apart.

Many of today's drugs are, alas, probably far more dangerous, but there doesn't seem to be much that draconian laws can do about it. Some people are hell bent on self-destruction, whatever we do. It is to some extent a symptom of a physically healthy but psychologically very sick society: it is noteworthy that lots of our social diseases are virtually unknown in hunter-gatherer societies, or among the Amish.

Perhaps we are barking up the wrong tree in the first place.


----------



## millionrainbows

Uuuhh...what was the question?


----------



## neoshredder

The temptation to get drunk and high would be real if weed was legal. I'm glad it isn't because of that reason. That extra effort to get some is a turnoff for me.


----------



## DavidA

It is of course perfectly useless to try and convince people who are on the legalisation bandwagon of the harmfulness of drugs. The fact is that these things were banned because they were considered harmful. They still are harmful. I just don't want people, particularly the young, to have access to things which are harmful. If anyone would not argue that these drugs can be harmful then they need to come and work with some of the people I know who are psychotic and have other mental and physical illnesses because of use of these drugs. This is reality not some nice liberal theory. These things are bad for you!


----------



## mtmailey

millionrainbows said:


> Man, you just don't know how to have fun!


There are other ways to have fun smoking dope is just a waste of time & money.


----------



## Garlic

DavidA said:


> It is of course perfectly useless to try and convince people who are on the legalisation bandwagon of the harmfulness of drugs. The fact is that these things were banned because they were considered harmful. They still are harmful. I just don't want people, particularly the young, to have access to things which are harmful. If anyone would not argue that these drugs can be harmful then they need to come and work with some of the people I know who are psychotic and have other mental and physical illnesses because of use of these drugs. This is reality not some nice liberal theory. These things are bad for you!


Ah what's the point. Why can't we just live and let live?

How many people here railing against "drugs" drink alcohol or coffee? Don't worry, I won't judge you for that as long as you don't judge me for preferring other things.









Source: UK Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs


----------



## Garlic

This one demonstrates how illogical the drug classification system is in Britain
(the US is similar or worse)









Cannabis was reclassified as Class B a few years ago, due to tabloid pressure and against the advice of scientists. This means I now risk going to prison for enjoying my favourite plant. Oh well.


----------



## brianvds

DavidA said:


> It is of course perfectly useless to try and convince people who are on the legalisation bandwagon of the harmfulness of drugs.


On the contrary, I am well aware that drugs are harmful. They are not as harmful to society as prohibition though.



> The fact is that these things were banned because they were considered harmful. They still are harmful. I just don't want people, particularly the young, to have access to things which are harmful.


What makes you think that the illegal status of some drugs means that the young will not have access to them?


----------



## brianvds

Garlic said:


> Cannabis was reclassified as Class B a few years ago, due to tabloid pressure and against the advice of scientists. This means I now risk going to prison for enjoying my favourite plant. Oh well.


And this is the other major argument for legalization: on which grounds can anyone tell me what I am allowed to smoke? And given that the government can now prescribe to me what I am allowed to smoke in the privacy of my own home, how long before it will also tell me what I am allowed to read or think or which pictures I am allowed to own or look at or how much meat I am allowed to eat?

May sound silly, except that many governments are already doing precisely that.

The line between the nanny state and a police state is wearing dangerously thin.


----------



## millionrainbows

I just recently discovered that my own grandmother is addicted to marijuana. I was following close behind her as she waddled up the stairs, laughing uncontrollably as she passed gas with each step. "Grandma, _why?_" I pleaded, but she simply plopped down on the bed to watch Lawrence Welk re-runs, as she rolled-up another nice, fat doobie.

The lighter _clicked_ as she lit the end, sucking deeply on the blimp-like THC conveyance device. "The problem with you young'uns is that....wwwwhhhhtttt.....you don't know how to slow down and enjoy life!"

The following morning, the car arrived which took her to the "tough love" compound in Nicaragua which we had arranged for her "cure." Bye bye, Granny.

That was fun! I'm gonna write another story like that tomorrow! I'm so thankful for the creative inspiration which marijuana has provided to me. Let's see, this next one will involve a distant cousin, female, who shows up in a bikini to use the pool...wwhhht!


----------



## Guest

brianvds said:


> And this is the other major argument for legalization: on which grounds can anyone tell me what I am allowed to smoke? And given that the government can now prescribe to me what I am allowed to smoke in the privacy of my own home, how long before it will also tell me what I am allowed to read or think or which pictures I am allowed to own or look at or how much meat I am allowed to eat?
> 
> May sound silly, except that many governments are already doing precisely that.
> 
> The line between the nanny state and a police state is wearing dangerously thin.


Slippery slope arguments play well on emotions, but don't do much else. Quite honestly, there is no link between the government making drugs illegal and acting on any of those other things you mentioned. They are just as likely to do those things even if they were to suddenly legalize drugs.

What stops the government from doing these things? Well, we are supposed to. But we are too lazy anymore that we don't like taking responsibility for ourselves, and would rather the government do that for us. Can't get a job? Make the government help you. Can't get health insurance? Have the government force others to give it to you. Don't want to save for retirement? Have the government force others to support you in your old age.

I'm all for getting government out of most of these areas. But I don't believe they will. And then I hear arguments for legalizing marijuana from people like Garlic, and I know that it isn't really an argument from the standpoint of taking government out of another part of our lives, rather simply giving government a new role and new powers. So in the end, there is no net change. True, that might not be your ideal arrangement, but let's be realistic - which scenario is more likely? Your idea of just getting government out of the way of what we do to ourselves, or Garlic's idea of legalizing it so the government can take over quality control to make sure Garlic gets his nice "healthy" marijuana?

So like I said, if it is a choice between two evils, I'll go with the devil I know.


----------



## Guest

Garlic said:


> Ah what's the point. Why can't we just live and let live?
> 
> How many people here railing against "drugs" drink alcohol or coffee? Don't worry, I won't judge you for that as long as you don't judge me for preferring other things.
> 
> View attachment 21605
> 
> 
> Source: UK Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs


FYI, I drink neither alcohol nor coffee (nor tea, for that matter). Never have, never will.


----------



## Guest

brianvds said:


> Doing it this way is cheaper than draconian law enforcement and causes less harm to society. This is after all how it is already done for some drugs, and it seems to work reasonably well.
> 
> In the case of currently legal drugs, the industries are taxed and thus probably foot the bill for the enforcement of regulations themselves.
> 
> Whether anything at all should be regulated is of course another question, about which libertarians and statists have been arguing for centuries. What I find curiously incongruous about your ideas is that my impression is that you are at heart a libertarian, yet you want government to tax me to fund its program of enforcing draconian laws that have done extensive harm to society.
> 
> Next thing thing you'll tell us that porn should be illegal too...


I am not a libertarian - I lean libertarian in some areas, but not in others. I am more a conservative, or classical liberal. I believe in a little more government control than the Libertarians, but less than the current GOP. I am stuck in the middle. Law enforcement, at least to some degree, is a legitimate function of government. So I don't have a problem, per se, with government enforcing laws on the books.

But what about the other issues of marijuana use? The dominant means of consumption is still smoking the stuff. So then are we going to get into issues of secondhand marijuana smoke? Will we allow smoking pot in restricted areas of airports? And if so, would we have to create separate ones for marijuana and tobacco? What about smoking it in bars? Or in any other public places? If it is legal, what legitimate reason could you give to restrict it anymore than tobacco is restricted? If I don't happen to live in a state where smoking in public is prohibited, am I going to have to worry about taking my kids someplace where people are smoking pot? Or are you going to ban it to smoking at home only? Or in specially designated locations?

As to where your tax dollars go - well, that is an argument that is not unique to the drug question. In my country, I have just found out that my tax dollars go to fund the IRS, which has been discriminating against political groups that share many of my convictions. I am paying for an NSA that is spying on virtually every American. I am footing the bill for Obamacare, Food Stamps, and many other programs that I disagree with. Welcome to government.


----------



## millionrainbows

DrMike said:


> In my country, I have just found out that my tax dollars go to fund the IRS, which has been discriminating against political groups that share many of my convictions. I am paying for an NSA that is spying on virtually every American. I am footing the bill for Obamacare, Food Stamps, and many other programs that I disagree with. Welcome to government.


Oh, I think if they legalize pot, you won't have to pay for it, unless you buy it.



DrMike said:


> ...are we going to get into issues of secondhand marijuana smoke? Will we allow smoking pot in restricted areas of airports? And if so, would we have to create separate ones for marijuana and tobacco? What about smoking it in bars? Or in any other public places? If it is legal, what legitimate reason could you give to restrict it anymore than tobacco is restricted? If I don't happen to live in a state where smoking in public is prohibited, am I going to have to worry about taking my kids someplace where people are smoking pot? Or are you going to ban it to smoking at home only? Or in specially designated locations?


_Nahh,_ it'll be regulated like alcohol is. Quit comparing it to tobacco, just because it produces smoke. Unlike tobacco, it alters consciousness, so tobacco laws will apply to tobacco only. People won't be able to smoke it in public. It'll be treated & taxed similar to booze.

I think it'll be great when you can grow your own! So easy! Ha haa, you can't stop God's creation!

*At last, *the ultimate victory of "hippies" and anti-war counterculture over gun-toting Rebublicans and tea-baggers! Gay marriage, too! Ha haa! We win!


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, I think if they legalize pot, you won't have to pay for it, unless you buy it.
> 
> _Nahh,_ it'll be regulated like alcohol is. Quit comparing it to tobacco, just because it produces smoke. Unlike tobacco, it alters consciousness, so tobacco laws will apply to tobacco only. People won't be able to smoke it in public. It'll be treated & taxed similar to booze.
> 
> I think it'll be great when you can grow your own! So easy! Ha haa, you can't stop God's creation!
> 
> *At last, *the ultimate victory of "hippies" and anti-war counterculture over gun-toting Rebublicans and tea-baggers! Gay marriage, too! Ha haa! We win!


So if you kill somebody while high, will the law be more lenient? Whether it is directly killing someone, or something like vehicular manslaughter? And if it is going to be treated like alcohol, why can't you consume it in public? Most restaurants allow alcohol consumption, but not smoking. How will it be treated? Because there are similarities to tobacco, dealing with the whole smoke thing. If a person next to me drinks alcohol, there is no direct effect on me. But if a person next to me smokes a cigarette or a joint, it would directly affect me, both from the direct smoke and the secondhand smoke. So in that sense, I think it would definitely have to be regulated like smoking. But in spite of that, both alcohol and smoking are not restricted from public use.

And if you are going to treat it like alcohol, then personal production will still be regulated. What kind of alcohol? People can microbrew beers at home, but I believe that distilled drinks are regulated. Moonshining is still illegal. So how will it be with pot? Maybe you won't be able to grow your own.

The "hippie" counterculture isn't quite as victorious as you might think. How many of those hippies are okay with waging war now, so long as it is a Democrat waging it? And the current most famous prior pot-smoker, President Obama, still did his obligatory picture with a shotgun. So did John Kerry. Your "hippie" counterculture, then, has really only stood strong on wanting their weed. Kind of a sad hill to die on. I'm not seeing many victories. The Tea Party swept in a historic wave of GOP congressmen, retaking the House 2 years after Obama was elected. Hippie gun control legislation was killed. Obama, with Democrat support, surged troops in Afghanistan. Now he is contemplating support for the rebels in the Syrian civil war. Bill Clinton sent us to the Balkans and to Somalia. Bill Clinton was the one who signed DOMA into law. The Democrat control of the Senate is dependent on several conservative Democrats who oppose gun control and gay marriage.


----------



## brianvds

DrMike said:


> Slippery slope arguments play well on emotions, but don't do much else. Quite honestly, there is no link between the government making drugs illegal and acting on any of those other things you mentioned. They are just as likely to do those things even if they were to suddenly legalize drugs.


Which means that it isn't a mere slippery slope argument: government is in fact already extensively interfering in people's private lives. The pot issue is just one of many.



> What stops the government from doing these things? Well, we are supposed to. But we are too lazy anymore that we don't like taking responsibility for ourselves, and would rather the government do that for us. Can't get a job? Make the government help you. Can't get health insurance? Have the government force others to give it to you. Don't want to save for retirement? Have the government force others to support you in your old age.


I actually have less of a problem with the government being involved in welfare. At least in that field they are not kicking down people's doors and arresting them...



> I'm all for getting government out of most of these areas. But I don't believe they will. And then I hear arguments for legalizing marijuana from people like Garlic, and I know that it isn't really an argument from the standpoint of taking government out of another part of our lives, rather simply giving government a new role and new powers.


Well, I cannot speak for Garlic. The government already regulates all manner of things, some of them successfully and in quite a benign manner. I don't have a problem with regulation. I have a problem with government trying to take complete control of my private life.



DrMike said:


> But what about the other issues of marijuana use? The dominant means of consumption is still smoking the stuff. So then are we going to get into issues of secondhand marijuana smoke?


As MillionRainbows pointed out right after sending his granny to the Gulag, pot is likely to be treated like alcohol rather than a form of smoke: no public consumption anywhere except areas specifically designated for it. This is how it is done in the Netherlands, where pot has been successfully decriminalized.

I lived in the Netherlands for two years, and while most of the Dutch actually frown on it, it was simply never an issue. Pot is smoked in the "coffee shops," where it doesn't bother anyone. The only exception that I ever witnessed was on Queen's Day, when all of the Netherlands descended upon Amsterdam, dressed in orange and ready to party. The whole city seemed to disappear in a cloud of pot smoke, with policemen standing around and grinning amiably at the merry crowd.

I can't see how the above scenario can be a worse one than the case in America, where something like a half a million people are languishing behind bars because they chose to smoke something the government doesn't approve of. Half a million people who now have to be fed and clothed and housed on the tax payer's account, half a million people ripped from their families, half a million who now have criminal records and thus will struggle to find a job again and will, even upon their release, still be wards of the state (at tax payers' expense.)

My impression is that in fact, all over the western world, pot simply isn't much of an issue with anyone. Almost every last one of the recent U.S. presidents who signed ever more draconian anti-drug laws have admitted to using it themselves when they were young (I know, I know, they didn't inhale). Virtually everyone of my acquaintance, not a single one of whom is a criminal, has used it.

So why the draconian laws? Because they are the reason for the existence of powerful bureaucracies. There is much resistance to change when change might mean some government bureaucrat is going to lose his job.

Interestingly enough, the drug gangs are the ones most furiously opposed to the legalization of trade because it will take most of them out of business, and the ones who remain will have to put up with government regulations, while at the moment they operate with virtual impunity.

In the meantime, the silly nanny state laws have another unintended consequence: they make people like me begin to disrespect the law in general. I for one would most certainly never rat out any drug dealers to the cops, or, for that matter, anyone else engaged in any other victimless "crimes," of which there seem to be ever more and more every year.


----------



## Garlic

DrMike said:


> I am not a libertarian - I lean libertarian in some areas, but not in others. I am more a conservative, or classical liberal. I believe in a little more government control than the Libertarians, but less than the current GOP. I am stuck in the middle. Law enforcement, at least to some degree, is a legitimate function of government. So I don't have a problem, per se, with government enforcing laws on the books.
> 
> But what about the other issues of marijuana use? The dominant means of consumption is still smoking the stuff. So then are we going to get into issues of secondhand marijuana smoke? Will we allow smoking pot in restricted areas of airports? And if so, would we have to create separate ones for marijuana and tobacco? What about smoking it in bars? Or in any other public places? If it is legal, what legitimate reason could you give to restrict it anymore than tobacco is restricted? If I don't happen to live in a state where smoking in public is prohibited, am I going to have to worry about taking my kids someplace where people are smoking pot? Or are you going to ban it to smoking at home only? Or in specially designated locations?
> 
> As to where your tax dollars go - well, that is an argument that is not unique to the drug question. In my country, I have just found out that my tax dollars go to fund the IRS, which has been discriminating against political groups that share many of my convictions. I am paying for an NSA that is spying on virtually every American. I am footing the bill for Obamacare, Food Stamps, and many other programs that I disagree with. Welcome to government.


What harm does it do your kids to walk past someone smoking a joint? This seems like a silly thing to worry about.

As an aside, we here in Britain find the idea of many Americans that free healthcare is some kind of assault on freedom to be laughable. We consider it a basic human right. We're very proud of our "socialised" medicine, unfortunately the scum we currently have in power seem determined to destroy it and turn the situation into something similar to what you have. This is very scary to me.

I agree NSA spying is unacceptable. Obama is as bad as Bush.


----------



## Garlic

Can I ask how you feel about your tax money being spent on what you call "defence"? Those drones don't pay for themselves. If you oppose this then at least you're consistent.


----------



## Guest

National defense is a constitutionally mandated job of the government. So I don't have an issue with defense spending, per se. I have issues with how it is spent. Drones operated for indiscriminate use within our borders? I don't support it. As a weapon in a foreign war? If it saves American lives, sure. 

I am a constitutionalist. I am not a libertarian. I believe in the powers granted the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, and support them, but oppose extra-constitutional authority assumed by the federal government that should rather be the purview of the state governments, or left to the people themselves. Defense is a power granted the federal government.


----------



## Guest

Garlic said:


> What harm does it do your kids to walk past someone smoking a joint? This seems like a silly thing to worry about.
> 
> As an aside, we here in Britain find the idea of many Americans that free healthcare is some kind of assault on freedom to be laughable. We consider it a basic human right. We're very proud of our "socialised" medicine, unfortunately the scum we currently have in power seem determined to destroy it and turn the situation into something similar to what you have. This is very scary to me.
> 
> I agree NSA spying is unacceptable. Obama is as bad as Bush.


So you believe that it is within the powers of the government to control your health and make healthcare decisions for you, but not to tell you what you can put in your body? Which one is the greater intrusion on your personal liberty?


----------



## Guest

brianvds said:


> Which means that it isn't a mere slippery slope argument: government is in fact already extensively interfering in people's private lives. The pot issue is just one of many.
> 
> I actually have less of a problem with the government being involved in welfare. At least in that field they are not kicking down people's doors and arresting them...
> 
> Well, I cannot speak for Garlic. The government already regulates all manner of things, some of them successfully and in quite a benign manner. I don't have a problem with regulation. I have a problem with government trying to take complete control of my private life.
> 
> As MillionRainbows pointed out right after sending his granny to the Gulag, pot is likely to be treated like alcohol rather than a form of smoke: no public consumption anywhere except areas specifically designated for it. This is how it is done in the Netherlands, where pot has been successfully decriminalized.
> 
> I lived in the Netherlands for two years, and while most of the Dutch actually frown on it, it was simply never an issue. Pot is smoked in the "coffee shops," where it doesn't bother anyone. The only exception that I ever witnessed was on Queen's Day, when all of the Netherlands descended upon Amsterdam, dressed in orange and ready to party. The whole city seemed to disappear in a cloud of pot smoke, with policemen standing around and grinning amiably at the merry crowd.
> 
> I can't see how the above scenario can be a worse one than the case in America, where something like a half a million people are languishing behind bars because they chose to smoke something the government doesn't approve of. Half a million people who now have to be fed and clothed and housed on the tax payer's account, half a million people ripped from their families, half a million who now have criminal records and thus will struggle to find a job again and will, even upon their release, still be wards of the state (at tax payers' expense.)
> 
> My impression is that in fact, all over the western world, pot simply isn't much of an issue with anyone. Almost every last one of the recent U.S. presidents who signed ever more draconian anti-drug laws have admitted to using it themselves when they were young (I know, I know, they didn't inhale). Virtually everyone of my acquaintance, not a single one of whom is a criminal, has used it.
> 
> So why the draconian laws? Because they are the reason for the existence of powerful bureaucracies. There is much resistance to change when change might mean some government bureaucrat is going to lose his job.
> 
> Interestingly enough, the drug gangs are the ones most furiously opposed to the legalization of trade because it will take most of them out of business, and the ones who remain will have to put up with government regulations, while at the moment they operate with virtual impunity.
> 
> In the meantime, the silly nanny state laws have another unintended consequence: they make people like me begin to disrespect the law in general. I for one would most certainly never rat out any drug dealers to the cops, or, for that matter, anyone else engaged in any other victimless "crimes," of which there seem to be ever more and more every year.


So my question is this: ignore the rightness or wrongness of making pot illegal. If marijuana is not very addictive at all, and thus people who don't use it for medical reasons have no physical need to take it, why would one risk so much for a temporary high? What is the greater moral wrong? To throw your life away over an inconsequential chemical that is not needed, or to make such a thing illegal? Yes, it is illegal. You don't like that. There are lots of "victimless crimes" that nevertheless can ruin a person if caught. What if I choose to not pay my taxes. Nobody is directly harmed by that action. And I don't like the level of taxation from the government. I choose to not pay. I can have my wages garnished, even spend time in prison.

In any society that chooses to organize under a government, there are going to be any number of laws enacted that create "victimless" crimes. Such is life. So why do people violate those laws? Especially if they don't need to? At least in failing to pay taxes, you can argue that you need the money that you earned more than the government. What is the "need" to smoke pot? I'm not saying don't fight to get it legalized. But until such a time, it seems moronic to risk ruining your life over something that I am told repeatedly in this thread is one of the least addictive drugs out there, and thus the only purpose for taking it for recreational purposes is just to have fun.


----------



## Ukko

Jeez, are you guys getting paid by the word? You've been repeating yourselves for quite awhile now.


----------



## Garlic

DrMike said:


> So you believe that it is within the powers of the government to control your health and make healthcare decisions for you, but not to tell you what you can put in your body? Which one is the greater intrusion on your personal liberty?


This viewpoint seems bizarre to me, I suppose it's just a cultural difference. I'm grateful that I can get good quality treatment for any problem I have, whatever my financial situation is. I don't see what freedom I'm giving up there, I have just as much control over my health as you do. And yes, the second one is a far greater intrusion.

Apart from a maybe few fringe Randist nutjobs, no one in countries with a decent universal health care system considers this to be an assault on their freedom. This seems to be a peculiarly American phenomenon. Largely, I believe, because of residual McCarthyism and the fact that your politicians are in the pocket of pharmaceutical company lobbyists.


----------



## brianvds

DrMike said:


> So my question is this: ignore the rightness or wrongness of making pot illegal. If marijuana is not very addictive at all, and thus people who don't use it for medical reasons have no physical need to take it, why would one risk so much for a temporary high? What is the greater moral wrong? To throw your life away over an inconsequential chemical that is not needed, or to make such a thing illegal?


It is none of my business what other people choose to smoke, drink, ingest or inject. It is none of the government's business either. That is the whole point.



> Yes, it is illegal. You don't like that. There are lots of "victimless crimes" that nevertheless can ruin a person if caught. What if I choose to not pay my taxes. Nobody is directly harmed by that action. And I don't like the level of taxation from the government. I choose to not pay. I can have my wages garnished, even spend time in prison.


As far as I can work out, taxes do not do great harm to society, as draconian drug laws can be shown to do. And I don't know about the U.S., but at least here in Dark Africa you have to go to very great lengths in tax evasion before you will even be arrested, let alone thrown in prison.



> In any society that chooses to organize under a government, there are going to be any number of laws enacted that create "victimless" crimes. Such is life.


You truly are grist to the mill of anarchists. 

My problem isn't so much enacting and enforcing reasonable regulations, but the witch hunt atmosphere that has been created around some, but not all, forms of victimless crimes. Yes, drugs sometimes ruin lives. The current laws ALSO ruin lives. The law is supposed to preserve life, not ruin it.

Anyway, to prohibitionists of all persuasions I can only say "good luck with that." Whether it be drugs, porn, hate speech, subversive literature or copyright violation, thus far enacting draconian laws has had little effect other than to drive these underground where no further control of any kind is possible anymore.



> So why do people violate those laws? Especially if they don't need to? At least in failing to pay taxes, you can argue that you need the money that you earned more than the government. What is the "need" to smoke pot? I'm not saying don't fight to get it legalized. But until such a time, it seems moronic to risk ruining your life over something that I am told repeatedly in this thread is one of the least addictive drugs out there, and thus the only purpose for taking it for recreational purposes is just to have fun.


Well, I am not arguing that people should break the law. I am arguing to change the law, which is something altogether different. I do maintain though, that with some laws, I will emphatically not do my part to bring the "criminals" to justice. As far as I am concerned, in the privacy of his home my neighbour is most welcome to to smoke pot while watching kiddie porn and listening to an audio book of "The Satanic Verses". It's simply none of my business, it is none of the government's business and he will have nothing to fear from me.


----------



## Guest

brianvds said:


> Well, I am not arguing that people should break the law. I am arguing to change the law, which is something altogether different. I do maintain though, that with some laws, I will emphatically not do my part to bring the "criminals" to justice. As far as I am concerned, in the privacy of his home my neighbour is most welcome to to smoke pot while watching kiddie porn and listening to an audio book of "The Satanic Verses". It's simply none of my business, it is none of the government's business and he will have nothing to fear from me.


Surely you are joking about the kiddie porn. That is certainly not a victimless crime.

What you say makes sense to me in theory - I just don't believe it will ever become so in practice. As Margaret Thatcher described the ratchet effect, I don't believe that government ever gives itself less power. And so if the government were to legalize drugs, I don't think the end result is going to be a net increase in liberty. Call me a pragmatist, a cynic, whatever. I firmly believe in wresting more power from the government. But there are so many more important areas to me besides pot. If I am going to put my blood, sweat, and tears into gaining more individual liberty, I don't want to merely have the legalization of pointless drugs to be the end result. Because then the government could say that they had made a big concession, and rest on their laurels for a good long time. So a battle might have been won, while the war continues to be lost. So I would rather fight a more meaningful battle. Let's get the government off our backs in other ways, then we can come back later and sweat the small stuff.


----------



## Guest

Garlic said:


> This viewpoint seems bizarre to me, I suppose it's just a cultural difference. I'm grateful that I can get good quality treatment for any problem I have, whatever my financial situation is. I don't see what freedom I'm giving up there, I have just as much control over my health as you do. And yes, the second one is a far greater intrusion.
> 
> Apart from a maybe few fringe Randist nutjobs, no one in countries with a decent universal health care system considers this to be an assault on their freedom. This seems to be a peculiarly American phenomenon. Largely, I believe, because of residual McCarthyism and the fact that your politicians are in the pocket of pharmaceutical company lobbyists.


Americans have always been more mindful of individual liberty than our European cousins. That was the basis for our whole revolution. We have been more mindful of these things, in general, than Europe.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Garlic said:


> "Personal responsibility" is code for selfish individualism. People get where they are because of what happens to them in their lives, not because of moral strength or weakness. Addiction is an illness and should be treated as such.


That is a pathetic excuse for weak minds and wills. Everyone who is addicted to something, apart from the very few who were somehow made addicted without their knowledge (like children born to addicted mothers) has got himself into it, out of his own volition, and the responsibility lies squarely with himself. Not with his family, not with his friends who offered him drugs, not with the "cold hard world" that made him look for escape - only with himself. The same with everyone who commits crimes, by the way.

As for pot, and those who use it, can't they think up (as long as they still can think) more productive ways to spend their time on? Go read a book, take up a sport, learn something, do something to nurture your brain instead of willingly destroying it.


----------



## Garlic

Well, I know where I'd rather live.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

brianvds said:


> It is none of my business what other people choose to smoke, drink, ingest or inject... ... As far as I am concerned, in the privacy of his home my neighbour is most welcome to to smoke pot while watching kiddie porn and listening to an audio book of "The Satanic Verses". It's simply none of my business, it is none of the government's business and he will have nothing to fear from me.


As long as it is not _your own_ child, wife or friend who is engaging in willing self-destruction, and not _your own_ child who was forced to act in that kiddie porn. People who say things like this, always change their minds when it is about them and those who are close to them.


----------



## Garlic

SiegendesLicht said:


> That is a pathetic excuse for weak minds and wills. Everyone who is addicted to something, apart from the very few who were somehow made addicted without their knowledge (like children born to addicted mothers) has got himself into it, out of his own volition, and the responsibility lies squarely with himself. Not with his family, not with his friends who offered him drugs, not with the "cold hard world" that made him look for escape - only with himself. The same with everyone who commits crimes, by the way.
> 
> As for pot, and those who use it, can't they think up (as long as they still can think) more productive ways to spend their time on? Go read a book, take up a sport, learn something, do something to nurture your brain instead of willingly destroying it.


No one is responsible for anything they do. This is not a popular opinion, but it's true. Behaviour is determined entirely by brain chemistry. Anything else is superstitious nonsense, an excuse for a lack of compassion.

I'm planning to start a degree in September, so I won't have much of a chance to get high. I'll make the most of it this summer. Please don't tell me what to do.

I disagree with brianvds about the kiddie porn, this isn't a victimless crime. I agree with pretty much everything else he said.


----------



## Guest

Garlic said:


> Well, I know where I'd rather live.


I know as well where I would rather live.


----------



## Garlic

Well that's convenient for both of us.


----------



## Guest

Garlic said:


> No one is responsible for anything they do. This is not a popular opinion, but it's true. Behaviour is determined entirely by brain chemistry. Anything else is superstitious nonsense, an excuse for a lack of compassion.
> 
> I'm planning to start a degree in September, so I won't have much of a chance to get high. I'll make the most of it this summer. Please don't tell me what to do.
> 
> I disagree with brianvds about the kiddie porn, this isn't a victimless crime. I agree with pretty much everything else he said.


But if nobody is responsible for anything they do, how can there be crime, period, victimless or otherwise? Isn't the desire to produce kiddie porn just determined by brain chemistry. For that matter, are you even responsible for starting a degree? And if all behavior is determined by brain chemistry, how can you consciously choose to not get high once you start your degree? Doesn't that imply you are in some way responsible for your behavior?

And you say you agree with pretty much everything brianvds said, except the kiddie porn. But I'm pretty sure he is of the opinion that there is such a thing as personal responsibility.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DrMike said:


> I know as well where I would rather live.


As for me, I still do have trust in the European common sense. So far they have got through everything destiny has thrown their way, they will get through all this nonsense too, if maybe not in our lifetime.


----------



## Garlic

DrMike said:


> But if nobody is responsible for anything they do, how can there be crime, period, victimless or otherwise? Isn't the desire to produce kiddie porn just determined by brain chemistry. For that matter, are you even responsible for starting a degree? And if all behavior is determined by brain chemistry, how can you consciously choose to not get high once you start your degree? Doesn't that imply you are in some way responsible for your behavior?
> 
> And you say you agree with pretty much everything brianvds said, except the kiddie porn. But I'm pretty sure he is of the opinion that there is such a thing as personal responsibility.


Yes, people who abuse children have no choice in the matter. I have huge sympathy for them and their victims. They need help.

No, I have no responsibility for my choosing a degree. I could not have chosen otherwise. There is no guarantee I won't get high either, though based on past experiences I'm not too worried.

My view on personal responsibility is not a popular one, but it is the most sensible view based on the empirical evidence available. Otherwise you have to posit some kind of soul or self that exhibits top-down causation without being itself caused. This is illogical.


----------



## Guest

Garlic said:


> Yes, people who abuse children have no choice in the matter. I have huge sympathy for them and their victims. They need help.
> 
> No, I have no responsibility for my choosing a degree. I could not have chosen otherwise. There is no guarantee I won't get high either, though based on past experiences I'm not too worried.
> 
> My view on personal responsibility is not a popular one, but it is the most sensible view based on the empirical evidence available. Otherwise you have to posit some kind of soul or self that exhibits top-down causation without being itself caused. This is illogical.


Explain, then, how you have identical twins behave so differently? Or children ending up so different than their parents? Why does consciousness seem so illogical? Ignoring any theological explanation, why could we not have evolved something that allows for free thought and freedom? My mother is an accountant, my father an engineer. How did I come to be a scientist? What you call illogical, I simply describe as not yet proven or discovered.

And I thoroughly disagree about the child abuser not having a choice in the matter. Certainly there are exceptions, but your vision of a world without personal responsibility is absurd. So maybe politicians who pass laws to make pot illegal aren't responsible for their actions, so what is the point in opposing such legislation, if that is merely what they are hardwired to do? A world without personal responsibility for actions is a scary world indeed.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Garlic, wow! Just wow! That seems to be the new world record in pot-addled thinking. It is so darned upside down. And yes, I write that while being fully conscious and fully responsible for my own words.


----------



## neoshredder

There is only room in this world for 1 bad legal drug. In this case, Alcohol was that choice. Adding another will just make things worse. There would be an option to get both high and drunk. It might actually cause more accidents on the road. So yeah. Not a good idea imo.


----------



## Ravndal

Getting high and drunk (crunk) is the perfect high.


----------



## Garlic

DrMike said:


> Explain, then, how you have identical twins behave so differently? Or children ending up so different than their parents? Why does consciousness seem so illogical? Ignoring any theological explanation, why could we not have evolved something that allows for free thought and freedom? My mother is an accountant, my father an engineer. How did I come to be a scientist? What you call illogical, I simply describe as not yet proven or discovered.
> 
> And I thoroughly disagree about the child abuser not having a choice in the matter. Certainly there are exceptions, but your vision of a world without personal responsibility is absurd. So maybe politicians who pass laws to make pot illegal aren't responsible for their actions, so what is the point in opposing such legislation, if that is merely what they are hardwired to do? A world without personal responsibility for actions is a scary world indeed.


Identical twins behave differently because they have different life experiences, so their brains develop in different ways. Consciousness seems illogical because it is impossible for a system to completely understand itself. Free will is a nonsensical concept because it assumes that human brains, unique in the universe, are capable of being "unmoved movers". That's all I have time to address now.

A world without personal responsibility is not scary. Much more scary is a world in which people are capable of being good but _choose_ to be evil.


----------



## neoshredder

Ravndal said:


> Getting high and drunk (crunk) is the perfect high.


Exactly my point. Many will do it if it was legal. Drunk is safer than crunk. Agreed?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

So, you have basically thought this up as a fancy way to explain your being addicted to pot without acknowledging the fact that you choose to waste the resources of your body and mind on it instead of doing something productive with your life. And may I ask, what outside force is it that makes you go and get high time after time?


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> Exactly my point. Many will do it if it was legal. Drunk is safer than crunk. Agreed?


Yes, there is evidence to suggest that consuming both alcohol and marijuana at the same time leads to a higher level of incapacitation than either alone.


----------



## DavidA

Garlic said:


> Yes, people who abuse children have no choice in the matter. I have huge sympathy for them and their victims. They need help.
> 
> No, I have no responsibility for my choosing a degree. I could not have chosen otherwise. There is no guarantee I won't get high either, though based on past experiences I'm not too worried.
> 
> My view on personal responsibility is not a popular one, but it is the most sensible view based on the empirical evidence available. Otherwise you have to posit some kind of soul or self that exhibits top-down causation without being itself caused. This is illogical.


Yes, and thieves, murderers, wife beaters, etc, have no choice in the matter, so let's shut down the law courts and the prisons. When I parked in a restricted area I explain to the traffic warden I had no choice in the matter but he still wrote out a ticket.

Frankly the argument that we have no choice makes us subhuman. It is a mark of being a human being that we are responsible and have a choice in what we do. That is both the privilege and the responsibility of being a human being. Of course those who believe we are nothing but chemistry want to take away our very humanity. To me that is degrading.


----------



## Guest

Garlic said:


> Identical twins behave differently because they have different life experiences, so their brains develop in different ways. Consciousness seems illogical because it is impossible for a system to completely understand itself. Free will is a nonsensical concept because it assumes that human brains, unique in the universe, are capable of being "unmoved movers". That's all I have time to address now.
> 
> A world without personal responsibility is not scary. Much more scary is a world in which people are capable of being good but _choose_ to be evil.


But your view doesn't allow for the possibility either - that a person who has been raised in horrible conditions might rise above and still become a good person. So how does that happen?

So by your reasoning, identical twins that share all the same life experiences, if you were to then separate them after some developmental period, would still make identical choices given identical options?

Your paradigm seems the one that, rather than being the most logical, is the most appealing to those who want to engage in any activity they choose and not be held accountable for any of their actions.


----------



## Garlic

SiegendesLicht said:


> So, you have basically thought this up as a fancy way to explain your being addicted to pot without acknowledging the fact that you choose to waste the resources of your body and mind on it instead of doing something productive with your life. And may I ask, what outside force is it that makes you go and get high time after time?


You know nothing about my life. Please don't make assumptions.

There is no outside force, just my own background and experience.

If what I'm saying is so obviously stupid and insane, can you please explain your own views to me? How does personal responsibility work? Where does it enter into the brain? If it is physical, where is it in the brain? If it is not physical, how can it affect a physical system like the brain?


----------



## Guest

And I think I have spent enough time in this thread. Here is where I stand, and it will be my final word here.

I don't think much of pot at all. I think, at the very least, it is a waste of time and money and merely a form of escapism to avoid truly dealing with problems. Regardless of its level of danger. Were I asked to vote to make it illegal, I would be tempted to vote against making it illegal. However, with it already illegal, I have no great desire to exert any energy in pushing for its legalization. I will still teach my children to avoid it and all other such "recreational" drugs, as well as the socially "acceptable" ones - e.g. alcohol, tobacco. 

I understand the personal freedom argument - I just don't think it is a fight worth my effort. If I am going to fight for increased personal liberty, I don't want my tangible results to be the legalization of substances that I find the use of to be morally wrong. To me, it is playing to the lowest common denominator of personal liberty - the right to do whatever the hell "feels good." Not a battle for me. I'd rather shoot for the stars and miss than aim for the mud and hit it.


----------



## Garlic

DrMike said:


> But your view doesn't allow for the possibility either - that a person who has been raised in horrible conditions might rise above and still become a good person. So how does that happen?
> 
> So by your reasoning, identical twins that share all the same life experiences, if you were to then separate them after some developmental period, would still make identical choices given identical options?
> 
> Your paradigm seems the one that, rather than being the most logical, is the most appealing to those who want to engage in any activity they choose and not be held accountable for any of their actions.


1 - Because of their DNA and life experiences. Same as if they become a "bad" person.

2 - No 2 identical twins ever have the same life experience. And even if they did, their DNA mutates throughout their lives. These mutations are essentially random so would be different for each twin.

3 - Well I can't help that. I believe in what the evidence suggests, however unpalatable that may be..


----------



## Garlic

DavidA said:


> Yes, and thieves, murderers, wife beaters, etc, have no choice in the matter, so let's shut down the law courts and the prisons. When I parked in a restricted area I explain to the traffic warden I had no choice in the matter but he still wrote out a ticket.
> 
> Frankly the argument that we have no choice makes us subhuman. It is a mark of being a human being that we are responsible and have a choice in what we do. That is both the privilege and the responsibility of being a human being. Of course those who believe we are nothing but chemistry want to take away our very humanity. To me that is degrading.


Prison is essential for containing dangerous criminals and at least trying to alter their behaviour. Nothing to do with personal responsibility.

We are physical systems, operating under the laws of physics and chemistry, the same laws that determine everything else in the universe. Our behaviour is part of the physical structure of the universe, and has been determined since the big bang. Sorry if that upsets you.


----------



## norman bates

SiegendesLicht said:


> So, you have basically thought this up as a fancy way to explain your being addicted to pot without acknowledging the fact that you choose to waste the resources of your body and mind on it instead of doing something productive with your life.


is it productive to waste time on a music forum?

And, I should add, is it music productive in any way?


----------



## Garlic

norman bates said:


> is it productive to waste time on a music forum?
> 
> And, I should add, is it music productive in any way?


Music is a total waste of time. It's just a form of escapism for people too afraid to face the meaningless of life.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

norman bates said:


> is it productive to waste time on a music forum?
> 
> And, I should add, is it music productive in any way?


If spending time on a music forum makes you learn more about something you love, sure it is productive. At the very worst it does not destroy you. And personally I feel getting to know classical music does have a good influence on me. If anything, it's made me less tolerant of all sorts of degeneracy.


----------



## Op.123

Garlic said:


> Music is a total waste of time. It's just a form of escapism for people too afraid to face the meaningless of life.


What?
Nonsense.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Garlic said:


> If what I'm saying is so obviously stupid and insane, can you please explain your own views to me? How does personal responsibility work? Where does it enter into the brain? If it is physical, where is it in the brain? If it is not physical, how can it affect a physical system like the brain?


There is more to a human being than just the physical brain, there is also the psychological dimension. How they correlate - last time I checked, not even scientists have it all figured out. There are all the conflicting influences on the person, but it is the person that chooses which ones to follow. Otherwise, how come, for example, some children of alcoholics never touch a bottle though they have seen their parents drink all their life? It is possible for a human being to override even the very basic instincts (such as self-preservation - by suicide), to say nothing of less powerful influences, such as desire to get high or to commit crimes. That is why a person should control himself and his behavior and should be held accountable for failure to do so.


----------



## norman bates

SiegendesLicht said:


> If spending time on a music forum makes you learn more about something you love, sure it is productive.


it's not productive at all, unless you're a musician. You aren't producing nothing.



SiegendesLicht said:


> At the very worst it does not destroy you.


I don't think it's true. Imagine you're a student, but you prefer listening to music instead of study.


----------



## Ravndal

I sat trough high school with earplugs, listening to music. Now I party, use drugs and drink.
ZOMG. Music leads to drugs.


----------



## DavidA

Garlic said:


> Prison is essential for containing dangerous criminals and at least trying to alter their behaviour. Nothing to do with personal responsibility.
> 
> We are physical systems, operating under the laws of physics and chemistry, the same laws that determine everything else in the universe. Our behaviour is part of the physical structure of the universe, and has been determined since the big bang. Sorry if that upsets you.


Your views do not upset me at all because I consider them fundamentally wrong!


----------



## Garlic

SiegendesLicht said:


> There is more to a human being than just the physical brain, there is also the psychological dimension. How they correlate - last time I checked, not even scientists have it all figured out. There are all the conflicting influences on the person, but it is the person that chooses which ones to follow. Otherwise, how come, for example, some children of alcoholics never touch a bottle though they have seen their parents drink all their life? It is possible for a human being to override even the very basic instincts (such as self-preservation - by suicide), to say nothing of less powerful influences, such as desire to get high or to commit crimes. That is why a person should control himself and his behavior and should be held accountable for failure to do so.


If this turns into a religious or theological discussion I'm bailing out.

There is no self separate from the brain. Dualism has not been taken seriously by scientists or philosophers for over a century. You are your brain, not some magical essence over and above it. Again, how does this free choice work? It would violate everything we know about how the brain works.

Our thoughts are either random or determined. The latter seems most likely, but neither gives us responsibility for them. The burden of proof is on you to explain how personal responsibility works.

If the psychological is separate from the physical, why do people with acquired brain injuries behave differently than before?


----------



## Guest

SiegendesLicht said:


> last time I checked, not even scientists have it all figured out.


They're just so unreliable those scientists. Clearly, it's about time that they had everything tied up with pink ribbons, then we could all get on with enjoying life and not fretting about The Answers.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Garlic said:


> Our thoughts are either random or determined. The latter seems most likely, but neither gives us responsibility for them. The burden of proof is on you to explain how personal responsibility works.


While I am not well-versed in psychology and could not explain it to you in scientific terms, it has been a given throughout all history that a person from childhood on was supposed to have his act together, and to bear responsibility for both his word (something unheard of nowadays, when we sign written contracts and still do not keep them) and his deed. Without it any society would quickly descend into chaos. (In fact up to now, the responsibility was enforced far more strictly. We keep mass murderers in comfortable prisons, feed them and expect to "rehabilitate" them. A hundred years ago they would simply hang.)
Your point of view is somewhere betwenn childish and poisonous, but I guess, in the age of internal anarchy it would find a lot of adherents.


----------



## Guest

SiegendesLicht said:


> Your point of view is somewhere betwenn childish and poisonous,


I'm assuming I'm not the 'you', (it would help if you were to quote). Nevertheless, whilst the implications of garlic's 'pov' may seem unattractive, the pov itself is neither childish nor poisonous.

Setting aside the possible sources of either free-will or determinism, both viewpoints are worthy of exploration, not dismissal.


----------



## moody

Garlic said:


> Well that's convenient for both of us.


Well, where do you live stop being so evasive.


----------



## moody

SiegendesLicht said:


> While I am not well-versed in psychology and could not explain it to you in scientific terms, it has been a given throughout all history that a person from childhood on was supposed to have his act together, and to bear responsibility for both his word (something unheard of nowadays, when we sign written contracts and still do not keep them) and his deed. Without it any society would quickly descend into chaos. (In fact up to now, the responsibility was enforced far more strictly. We keep mass murderers in comfortable prisons, feed them and expect to "rehabilitate" them. A hundred years ago they would simply hang.)
> Your point of view is somewhere betwenn childish and poisonous, but I guess, in the age of internal anarchy it would find a lot of adherents.


It wasn't a hundred years ago.


----------



## Garlic

moody said:


> Well, where do you live stop being so evasive.


Same country as you


----------



## brianvds

DrMike said:


> Surely you are joking about the kiddie porn. That is certainly not a victimless crime.


As long as my neighbour is not involved in the actual production of the stuff, then I consider it none of my business what kind of pictures he chooses to look at.



SiegendesLicht said:


> As long as it is not _your own_ child, wife or friend who is engaging in willing self-destruction, and not _your own_ child who was forced to act in that kiddie porn. People who say things like this, always change their minds when it is about them and those who are close to them.


Really? As I mentioned earlier, my mother was an alcoholic, and this didn't turn me into a prohibitionist. As for children acting in porn films, it is almost invariably their own parents who make them do it. If there even is such a thing: I have never, in twenty years of surfing the web, ever seen anything remotely resembling kiddie porn. We are in fact not legally _allowed_ to see any of the evidence. Thus one has to wonder about the extent to which the crime actually happens.


----------



## DavidA

Garlic said:


> If this turns into a religious or theological discussion I'm bailing out.
> 
> There is no self separate from the brain. Dualism has not been taken seriously by scientists or philosophers for over a century. You are your brain, not some magical essence over and above it. Again, how does this free choice work? It would violate everything we know about how the brain works.
> 
> Our thoughts are either random or determined. The latter seems most likely, but neither gives us responsibility for them. The burden of proof is on you to explain how personal responsibility works.
> 
> If the psychological is separate from the physical, why do people with acquired brain injuries behave differently than before?


I could point you to many scientists who would disagree with you. Many more who would disagree we are predetermined. Mind you, your theory of chemical determinism has the Marquis de Sade to back it up! It was that theory which led to his sadism. It's no doubt comforting to know that if one's daughter marries a man who abuses her, then it's all been predetermined by his genes.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Mind you, your theory of chemical determinism has the Marquis de Sade to back it up!


Why must people leap immediately to the obvious extremes to try to oppose an argument? There is nothing wrong in posing the hypothesis, "If I am nothing more than a particular combination of chemicals, each with its own set of determined characteristics, then perhaps I cannot be held responsible for what those chemicals inevitably get up to."

I don't happen to agree with the hypothesis, but I don't have to cite a Boogeyman to make my point. In fact, I'd run a mile from such crude argumentation (not least because I don't believe in absolute moral standards, and 'child pornography' is where that line of reasoning always ends up).


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Why must people leap immediately to the obvious extremes to try to oppose an argument? There is nothing wrong in posing the hypothesis, "If I am nothing more than a particular combination of chemicals, each with its own set of determined characteristics, then perhaps I cannot be held responsible for what those chemicals inevitably get up to."
> 
> ).


There is everything wrong with it IMO, because I believe it happens to be totally wrong.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> There is everything wrong with it IMO, because I believe it happens to be totally wrong.


I too believe that wrong things are wrong (though the 'totally' seems a trifle unnecessary).


----------



## Crudblud

An acquaintance of mine from another forum gave me some interesting information on this point:

"The famous neuroscientist Sam Harris makes an extremely compelling case against the existence of free will in his book called (believe it or not) Free Will. According to him studies have shown that our brains send out the signal to act in a certain way before our consciousness is aware of it. That means that we are not consciously deciding to do anything; the "decision" is taking place in our subconscious. We no more decide to have a second cup of coffee today (for example) than we decide to pump blood through our veins.

But more compelling than that is the logic of it. We act the way we do because a combination of factors (experience, the way we feel, our likes and dislikes, our genetic disposition, etc) compel us to act in that way. Even in cases where we act randomly, obviously we're not exercising free will as we understand it (kind of the opposite, in fact). Free will is a highly realistic figment of our imaginations. Its existence simply doesn't make sense."

I haven't read the book myself, but I trust this source's analysis. I'm not going to argue that this automatically exonerates us of responsibility for wrongdoing; from my own moral view there is simply no justification for murder, rape, domestic abuse etc., but I do think it is an interesting point.


----------



## DavidA

Crudblud said:


> An acquaintance of mine from another forum gave me some interesting information on this point:
> 
> "The famous neuroscientist Sam Harris makes an extremely compelling case against the existence of free will in his book called (believe it or not) Free Will. According to him studies have shown that our brains send out the signal to act in a certain way before our consciousness is aware of it. That means that we are not consciously deciding to do anything; the "decision" is taking place in our subconscious. We no more decide to have a second cup of coffee today (for example) than we decide to pump blood through our veins.
> 
> But more compelling than that is the logic of it. We act the way we do because a combination of factors (experience, the way we feel, our likes and dislikes, our genetic disposition, etc) compel us to act in that way. Even in cases where we act randomly, obviously we're not exercising free will as we understand it (kind of the opposite, in fact). Free will is a highly realistic figment of our imaginations. Its existence simply doesn't make sense."
> 
> I haven't read the book myself, but I trust this source's analysis. I'm not going to argue that this automatically exonerates us of responsibility for wrongdoing; from my own moral view there is simply no justification for murder, rape, domestic abuse etc., but I do think it is an interesting point.


To quote a reviewer:
Sam Harris's argument against free will is fueled by assertions -- assertions that simply assume what he is trying to prove. In fact, much of his case consists of sheer bluff, as if saying what he is trying to prove with enough bravado is sufficient to prove his case.

"There is," he says, "simply no intellectually respectable position from which to deny this." No denying this. Check. "There is no question that (most, if not all) mental events are the product of physical events." No question. Got it. "My mental life is simply given to me by the cosmos." Right. Blessed be the Almighty Cosmos.

He argues that we are not aware of the neurological events that produce our thoughts, moods, perceptions, and behavior, and that, since we are not aware of them, they must produce our thoughts. Not only does this not logically follow, it simply assumes that these things are "produced" by neurological events, when this is the very point at issue.

He is singularly impressed by the evidence that neurological events seem to precede the thoughts they "produce":

The physiologist Benjamin Libet famously used EEG to show that activity in the brain's motor cortex can be detected some 300 milliseconds before a person feels that he has decided to move ... More recently, direct recordings from the cortex showed that the activity of merely 256 neurons was sufficient to predict that 80 percent accuracy a person's decision to move 700 milliseconds before he became aware of it.
"These findings," he adds, "are difficult to reconcile with the sense that we are the conscious authors of our actions." Why? He argues that this shows that "some moments before you are aware of what you will do next, your brain has already determined what you will do." But before we can decide what we can infer from the evidence, we have to ask exactly what the evidence is.
He appears to be saying that there are two chemical events being detected by scientific instruments: one that is the physical event that causes the decision, and one that is the physical event that constitutes our awareness that we are making the decision.

The first question is how we know which event -- the one that Harris identifies as pre-determinative and the one that he identifies as the awareness of making the decision -- is the decision itself. He seems to identify the latter event -- the awareness of the decision -- as the decision itself. But an awareness of a decision isn't necessarily the decision. In fact, on the face of it, it would make more sense to think that the awareness of making a decision is a separate act from the decision itself. The mental act of thinking about something and the mental act of thinking about your mental act of thinking about something would clearly be two mental acts.

By what reasoning does he say that the first chemical event is pre-determinative and the second what is pre-determined? Why couldn't the first event be the decision and the second the awareness that we have made the decision? Given Harris's penchant for making assumptions he has not justified, it seems we are justified in being suspicious. There may be some reason to interpret it the way he does, but he does not give us enough information to know what it is. It is not even clear that he has considered any alternative interpretation than the one that favors his case.

So when Harris asks us what we should think about a situation (which he clearly considers possible) in which experimenters could know, a split second before you made it, what your decision would be, we could simply ask what justifies them in thinking that the neurological event they had thought was the event which caused the decision was not the decision itself, and the latter the neurological event co-incident with awareness of the decision they had just made?

In fact, one question is whether we can ever reliably know the answer to this question at all.

And then Harris makes this rather strange statement:

Consider what it would take to actually have free will. You would need to be aware of all the factors that determine your thoughts and actions, and you would need to have complete control over those factors.
You would? Think of what would be necessary, if what Harris says here is true, to drive a car: You would need to be aware of all the factors that make the car go, and you would have to have complete control over them. I'm pretty sure most people on the road have no clue how their engine was put together or how it works, and they have very little control over how these factors work together at any given moment. But they seem to get around just fine. In fact, Harris's assertion here is just silly.
Then he makes statements that are simply ludicrous. He says, "If you don't know what your soul is going to do next, you are not in control." Huh? You have to know what your decision is before you make it in order for it to be a free will decision? Why? And if this is the case, then what about the neurological event that Harris would say would have to constitute the knowledge of what the decision will be? Would we need to know what that knowledge would be before we had it too? How far back do we need to go?

Then there are those statements the full import of which one must meditate on for long periods of time in highly oxygenated air in order to fully appreciate: "A voluntary action," he says, "is accompanied by the felt intention to carry it out." No kidding? Really? "We do not know what we intend to do until the intention arises." No! Get out!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> To quote a reviewer:


You might reference your source, David, especially given the difficulty in working out where your words and those of the reviewer begin and end.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/bluff_and_brava066241.html


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> You might reference your source, David, especially given the difficulty in working out where your words and those of the reviewer begin and end.
> 
> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/bluff_and_brava066241.html


I would have thought it was obvious where my words end.

The review was from the Discovery Institute website.

I was interested in what it actually said.


----------



## Crudblud

DavidA said:


> And then Harris makes this rather strange statement:
> 
> Consider what it would take to actually have free will. You would need to be aware of all the factors that determine your thoughts and actions, and you would need to have complete control over those factors.
> You would? Think of what would be necessary, if what Harris says here is true, to drive a car: You would need to be aware of all the factors that make the car go, and you would have to have complete control over them. I'm pretty sure most people on the road have no clue how their engine was put together or how it works, and they have very little control over how these factors work together at any given moment. But they seem to get around just fine. In fact, Harris's assertion here is just silly.


I'm not going to address the whole thing because, as I said before, I haven't read the book, nor am I in any way qualified to debate neuroscience. I found this section interesting because it shows that not only does the reviewer not understand what Harris is saying, he thinks human beings are cars.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I would have thought it was obvious where my words end.
> 
> The review was from the Discovery Institute website.
> 
> I was interested in what it actually said.


Sorry David, but without better paragraphing and the use of quotation marks (or even italicising), it wasn't obvious to me.

I too was interested in what it said, insofar as I could make it out - the quote about Libet's work is much clearer in the source I've found, for example - but what it said was not much more than a series of rhetorical questions intended to cast doubt on Harris's work without offering any substantial argument or evidence to rebut his position.

The 'car' analogy is wholly inadequate, for example, since, whilst we can all 'get about pretty much', we might all get about a lot better- with fewer accidents - if we fully understood all the variables that affect our driving, including the functioning of the car itself.


----------



## Ramako

Garlic said:


> Identical twins behave differently because they have different life experiences, so their brains develop in different ways. Consciousness seems illogical because it is impossible for a system to completely understand itself. Free will is a nonsensical concept because it assumes that human brains, unique in the universe, are capable of being "unmoved movers". That's all I have time to address now.


If you think consciousness is illogical, _I_ think you need to reexamine your reasoning or your assumptions. Either that, or perhaps all of you have been that figment of my imagination all along 



Garlic said:


> We are physical systems, operating under the laws of physics and chemistry, the same laws that determine everything else in the universe. Our behaviour is part of the physical structure of the universe, and has been determined since the big bang. Sorry if that upsets you.


That is a very _absolute_ statement. Pity you can't back it up with _absolute_ evidence.



Garlic said:


> My view on personal responsibility is not a popular one, but it is the most sensible view based on the empirical evidence available. Otherwise you have to posit some kind of soul or self that exhibits top-down causation without being itself caused. This is illogical.


I suggest you say counter-intuitive or some such instead of illogical when that is what you mean. As someone apparently well-versed in philosophy, you should know this better than I.



Garlic said:


> people too afraid to face the meaningless of life.


Nothing is easier than thinking life is meaningless.

Nevertheless, very few who think that life is meaningless actually believe and live it (or should I say, face it?): we'd notice it. They create meaning for themselves.

They do not, as MR puts it, *embrace the darkness*.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> The review was from the Discovery Institute website.


Hmm, well struggling find that, but did find another review of Sam Harris' book which takes a less sceptical view,

http://www.americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-03-book-review-sam-harris-free-will.

For example,



> what we think of as free will is no more than an illusion. However, [Sam Harris] argues, that does not damn us to some sort of pre-determined existence in which we should all sit back and just watch our lives play out.


----------



## DavidA

Crudblud said:


> I'm not going to address the whole thing because, as I said before, I haven't read the book, nor am I in any way qualified to debate neuroscience. I found this section interesting because it shows that not only does the reviewer not understand what Harris is saying, he thinks human beings are cars.


Please note that the reviewer talks about humans driving a car. As far as I know cars do not drive cars.

Also if you have not read Harris' book how can you say that the reviewer does not understand it?


----------



## Guest

Ramako said:


> Nothing is easier than thinking life is meaningless.


I think there is little that is harder, actually, which is why 'they' struggle to 'embrace the darkness'.

Personally, the prospect of oblivion frightens me witless, so I try not to think about it, not least because the medications on offer to soothe my fears are all so much snake oil.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Hmm, well struggling find that, but did find another review of Sam Harris' book which takes a less sceptical view,
> 
> http://www.americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-03-book-review-sam-harris-free-will.
> 
> For example,


Of course the American humanist institute takes a less skeptical view as they are in the same ideological camp as Harris!


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Sorry David, but without better paragraphing and the use of quotation marks (or even italicising), it wasn't obvious to me.
> 
> I too was interested in what it said, insofar as I could make it out - the quote about Libet's work is much clearer in the source I've found, for example - but what it said was not much more than a series of rhetorical questions intended to cast doubt on Harris's work without offering any substantial argument or evidence to rebut his position.
> 
> The 'car' analogy is wholly inadequate, for example, since, whilst we can all 'get about pretty much', we might all get about a lot better- with fewer accidents - if we fully understood all the variables that affect our driving, including the functioning of the car itself.


But we are predetermined to be a bad driver!

Else you contradict Harris' thesis. Or Harris contradicts himself!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Of course the American humanist institute takes a less skeptical view as they are in the same ideological camp as Harris!


So, you don't need to read the review because you can already dismiss what it is saying?


----------



## Ramako

MacLeod said:


> I think there is little that is harder, actually, which is why 'they' struggle to 'embrace the darkness'.
> 
> Personally, the prospect of oblivion frightens me witless, so I try not to think about it, not least because the medications on offer to soothe my fears are all so much snake oil.


Thinking life is meaningless is not at all hard (though perhaps I should not assume for all).

Living it, however, seems to be tremendously hard.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> So, you don't need to read the review because you can already dismiss what it is saying?


I didn't say anything about the review. Read what I said.

But in any case these people did not write it out of free will. They wrote it because they were predetermined to write it either by their genes or by the chemistry in their bodies. So actually their review has no value whatsoever because it was all predetermined and not an impartial product of their minds.


----------



## Ramako

MacLeod said:


> I think there is little that is harder, actually, which is why 'they' struggle to 'embrace the darkness'.
> 
> Personally, the prospect of oblivion frightens me witless, so I try not to think about it, not least because the medications on offer to soothe my fears are all so much snake oil.


Allow me to predict, however, that this thread soon _will_ embrace the darkness.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Else you contradict Harris' thesis. Or Harris contradicts himself!


Who can say? You and I can't because we've not read the book.



DavidA said:


> I didn't say anything about the review.


Which was my point. You noted the source I had cited and objected to it. You didn't read (or at least, didn't comment on) the review.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Who can say? You and I can't because we've not read the book.
> 
> Which was my point. You noted the source I had cited and objected to it. You didn't read (or at least, didn't comment on) the review.


The problem with Harris' thesis is we don't act as if it were true. So if someone runs a red light and hits my car I don't blame him because he had no free will and it was pre-determined? No! I view him as responsible and ask him for his insurance. The insurance companies also view him as responsible as he loses his no claims bonus. Harris' argument is pseudo-science based on his own world view. We don't act like that in real life. Anyway, we are getting far from the original question of pot. But why discuss it? It's all in the chemistry of the body so why discuss any rights and wrongs? There aren't any, as we have no free will to choose!


----------



## Garlic

Come on, citing the Discovery Institute as a source? You can do better than that!

Here's some quotes from more immoral determinists who want to justify bad behaviour:

"I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper." - Albert Einstein

"Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion." - Stephen Hawking

"Men are deceived because they think themselves free, and the sole reason for thinking so is that they are conscious of their own actions, and ignorant of the causes by which those actions are determined." - Baruch Spinoza

As usual in these discussions, the only objection to determinism seems to be "I don't like the sound of it".


----------



## Garlic

Ramako said:


> Nothing is easier than thinking life is meaningless.
> 
> Nevertheless, very few who think that life is meaningless actually believe and live it (or should I say, face it?): we'd notice it. They create meaning for themselves.
> 
> They do not, as MR puts it, *embrace the darkness*.


I was being facetious. But yes, life is meaningless. So what? There's nothing scary or depressing about that, unless you need some metaphysical justification to keep going. Subjective meaning is beside the point.


----------



## DavidA

Garlic said:


> Come on, citing the Discovery Institute as a source? You can do better than that!
> 
> Here's some quotes from more immoral determinists who want to justify bad behaviour:
> 
> "I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper." - Albert Einstein
> 
> "Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion." - Stephen Hawking
> 
> "Men are deceived because they think themselves free, and the sole reason for thinking so is that they are conscious of their own actions, and ignorant of the causes by which those actions are determined." - Baruch Spinoza
> 
> As usual in these discussions, the only objection to determinism seems to be "I don't like the sound of it".


Absolutely not! All of these quotations you mentioned are determined not by science but by worldview. Einstein's quotation is not based on any scientific revelation but rather a belief in a certain philosophy. Similarly other scientists would take a far different view from Stephen Hawking. Four example the great astrophysicist John Polkinghorne would take a much different view from Hawking yet he is just as intelligent. These are matters of philosophy determined by worldview. Science just views the mechanism.

As for your mocking of the Discovery Institute as a source, it appears to be common among atheists who believe that scientism has all the answers. That however is just as much a fundamentalist worldview any fundamentalist religion.


----------



## Garlic

DavidA said:


> The problem with Harris' thesis is we don't act as if it were true. So if someone runs a red light and hits my car I don't blame him because he had no free will and it was pre-determined? No! I view him as responsible and ask him for his insurance. The insurance companies also view him as responsible as he loses his no claims bonus. Harris' argument is pseudo-science based on his own world view. We don't act like that in real life. Anyway, we are getting far from the original question of pot. But why discuss it? It's all in the chemistry of the body so why discuss any rights and wrongs? There aren't any, as we have no free will to choose!


I'll address your points one by one:

- I act "as if" it was true. It makes me more forgiving and compassionate towards others.
- You shouldn't blame him, but you can still act to try to alter his behaviour. 
- You seem to think morality is some objective property of reality. How does this work? Note, accepting moral nihilism (as I do) does not mean you cannot have subjective views on right and wrong.
- We can go back to blanket condemnations of cannabis users if you don't like where this discussion is going.


----------



## DavidA

Garlic said:


> I'll address your points one by one:
> 
> - I act "as if" it was true. It makes me more forgiving and compassionate towards others.
> - You shouldn't blame him, but you can still act to try to alter his behaviour.
> - You seem to think morality is some objective property of reality. How does this work? Note, accepting moral nihilism (as I do) does not mean you cannot have subjective views on right and wrong.
> - We can go back to blanket condemnations of cannabis users if you don't like where this discussion is going.


Well next time somebody hits your car I hope you don't blame him and claim of his insurance. Act in accordance with your principles. The poor guy has no free will and it was not his fault. And if he has no insurance then don't report it to the police because of course his having no insurance was all part of his having no free will! Unless you want to go to blanket condemnation of people who drive without insurance!


----------



## Guest

Garlic said:


> There's nothing scary or depressing about that, unless you need some metaphysical justification to keep going.


There _is _something scary about it, for some, as Ramako noted, and the need for metaphysical justifications has nothing to do with it. I don't know enough about logic to make this point properly, but isn't there something a posteriori going on here? "I fear the meaningless of life, so I must find a metaphysical explanation to give my life meaning!" Or is it, "The only reason I accept a metaphysical explanation for the meaning of life is because I fear meaninglessness."

Neither of these must be true.


----------



## Crudblud

DavidA said:


> Please note that the reviewer talks about humans driving a car. As far as I know cars do not drive cars.
> 
> Also if you have not read Harris' book how can you say that the reviewer does not understand it?


I'm referring specifically to the Harris quote Cothran (the author of the review in the source that MacLeod offered) attempts to refute. He doesn't understand it. He then says that humans, or at least drivers, are cars, as I will demonstrate. The internal processes that make a car go and the actions that trigger those processes are two separate things, the driver only need know how to perform the latter to drive the car, *the former is not a factor in determining the thoughts and actions of the driver*. The internal processes of the car and the details thereof could only influence the thoughts and actions of the driver if the driver was the car, because only then could the driver have enough knowledge of those processes at all times to be influenced by them.

The implication of Cothran's misunderstanding in a broader context is that humans must become the objects they interact with in order to be able to interact with them. So, under Cothran's strawman model, to eat a banana one must become the banana and learn how its skin tears on the subatomic level in order to tear the skin, and then one must learn how the flesh inside reacts to contact with human teeth of various shapes and sizes at various velocities and pressures at that same level in order to cut and chew the flesh with one's teeth and so on. I can see why he thinks it is ridiculous, but the thing he thinks is ridiculous and what Harris actually says in that quote are two different things.


----------



## Garlic

I don't think this is going anywhere. I've said my piece. If it makes you happy to believe that "you" (whatever that is) is the sole cause of your actions then so be it.


----------



## Chrythes

An important point is that Libet argues that we might have "free-no". We might not be able to decide our initial behaviour or thoughts, but we might be able to reject or alter them. It's an important mechanism since we are social animals, and by reflecting our thoughts we are at better odds to socially and environmentally adapt.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Well next time somebody hits your car I hope you don't blame him and claim of his insurance. Act in accordance with your principles. The poor guy has no free will and it was not his fault. And if he has no insurance then don't report it to the police because of course his having no insurance was all part of his having no free will! Unless you want to go to blanket condemnation of people who drive without insurance!


Your continued Aunt Sallying does you no credit. No one is arguing that because free-will is an illusion, we can therefore take no responsibility whatsoever for our actions. Please stop arguing is if they are.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Your continued Aunt Sallying does you no credit. No one is arguing that because free-will is an illusion, we can therefore take no responsibility whatsoever for our actions. Please stop arguing is if they are.


Sorry to offend you. I am just stating what happens in real life. Your arguments are based on an intellectual pseudoscience theory which has no basis in reality. We'll just do not act like that in real life. So it proves that we don't really believe it.

In any case Harris' arguments are not to be trusted. According to his theory they are just predetermined by his neurons and the chemical make-up of the body, not to mention the physics and chemistry of the universe. They are predetermined. They are not a product of his free will so cannot be trusted to be right.

To accuse me of aunt sallying says to me that you to make that you have run out of argument. However as your arguments are a predetermined factor that are predetermined anyway then please don't worry about it. And by the same argument, your own concept of predetermination is an illusion just as you say my belief in free will is.


----------



## Chrythes

"In any case Harris' arguments are not to be trusted. According to his theory they are just predetermined by his neurons and the chemical make-up of the body, not to mention the physics and chemistry of the universe. They are predetermined. They are not a product of his free will so cannot be trusted to be right."

I do not understand why you keep bringing this nonsense up. Predetermination does not eliminate the value of human accomplishments.


----------



## DavidA

Chrythes said:


> "In any case Harris' arguments are not to be trusted. According to his theory they are just predetermined by his neurons and the chemical make-up of the body, not to mention the physics and chemistry of the universe. They are predetermined. They are not a product of his free will so cannot be trusted to be right."
> 
> I do not understand why you keep bringing this nonsense up. Predetermination does not eliminate the value of human accomplishments.


Frankly this shows you have not understood the implications of Harris' thesis. Logically his arguments self destruct. You either have pre-determinism or you don't. If you accept it then who's to say which is right. Apart from Harris, of course!


----------



## Wood

I don't think you have to be a philosopher to work out that we are just a mass of atoms like the rest of the planet & therefore everything must be predetermined, based on the scientific knowledge available to us. I worked that out for myself whilst at school.

However, the conclusions that are being drawn from this do not seem logical to me.

For example, it doesn't automatically follow that because everything is predetermined, life is meaningless, or that it doesn't matter what people say and do, or that we cannot be judgemental.

The idea is fine, but I don't see where it takes us.


----------



## Garlic

hayd said:


> I don't think you have to be a philosopher to work out that we are just a mass of atoms like the rest of the planet & therefore everything must be predetermined, based on the scientific knowledge available to us. I worked that out for myself whilst at school.
> 
> However, the conclusions that are being drawn from this do not seem logical to me.
> 
> For example, it doesn't automatically follow that because everything is predetermined, life is meaningless, or that it doesn't matter what people say and do, or that we cannot be judgemental.
> 
> The idea is fine, but I don't see where it takes us.


Life has no *objective* meaning. I don't see why this matters, but for some people it's apparently a big deal.

We can make moral judgments but we have to remember that we are judging the actions themselves, not the people. This is important. Here's a moral judgment from me, based on my own entirely subjective morality: it is unacceptable to make people suffer for things they have no control over.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Garlic said:


> We can make moral judgments but we have to remember that we are judging the actions themselves, not the people. This is important. Here's a moral judgment from me, based on my own entirely subjective morality: it is unacceptable to make people suffer for things they have no control over.


And to what extent is it acceptable to make people suffer from those people who claim they are not responsible for their actions and therefore should not be held accountable for anything they do, whether it is destroying their life with drugs or destroying somebody else's life in order to find money to buy them?

So far in legal practice it is only the mentally ill that are not held accountable.


----------



## DavidA

hayd said:


> I don't think you have to be a philosopher to work out that we are just a mass of atoms like the rest of the planet & therefore everything must be predetermined, based on the scientific knowledge available to us. I worked that out for myself whilst at school.


The fact we are a mass of atoms does not make for everything being predetermined. You are mixing up science and philosophy.


----------



## Garlic

SiegendesLicht said:


> And to what extent is it acceptable to make people suffer from those people who claim they are not responsible for their actions and therefore should not be held accountable for anything they do, whether it is destroying their life with drugs or destroying somebody else's life in order to find money to buy them?
> 
> So far in legal practice it is only the mentally ill that are not held accountable.


I don't think it's acceptable to make anyone suffer. Those who infringe on others' rights need to be dealt with and attempts should be made to alter their behaviour. But it still doesn't make them responsible for what they do. This gives them too much credit.

If mentally ill people are not to be held accountable, where do you draw the line? At what point does a psychologically damaged person become mentally ill and therefore not responsible for their behaviour?


----------



## Garlic

DavidA said:


> The fact we are a mass of atoms does not make for everything being predetermined. You are mixing up science and philosophy.


Everything we know about the macroscopic world suggests determinism. On the smallest scales events may be random but everything larger than an atom behaves deterministically. If there are exceptions to this please let me know.

This desire to bracket certain things off as outside the realm of science seems to be motivated by a fear of "reductionism" which I think is unfounded. The only things we risk losing are the superstitions that act as a barrier to real understanding (dualism being the key example here).


----------



## norman bates

brianvds said:


> I have never, in twenty years of surfing the web, ever seen anything remotely resembling kiddie porn. We are in fact not legally _allowed_ to see any of the evidence. Thus one has to wonder about the extent to which the crime actually happens.


you've probably never been in the Deep Web


----------



## Ravndal

norman bates said:


> you've probably never been in the Deep Web


 I was about to say the same... its *a lot* of it...


----------



## DavidA

Garlic said:


> Everything we know about the macroscopic world suggests determinism. On the smallest scales events may be random but everything larger than an atom behaves deterministically. If there are exceptions to this please let me know.
> 
> This desire to bracket certain things off as outside the realm of science seems to be motivated by a fear of "reductionism" which I think is unfounded. The only things we risk losing are the superstitions that act as a barrier to real understanding (dualism being the key example here).


Creatures called human beings! Your arguments don't add up to reality. It is not superstition that stands in the way of determinism but common sense and observation.


----------



## Ramako

Garlic said:


> I was being facetious. But yes, life is meaningless. So what? There's nothing scary or depressing about that, unless you need some metaphysical justification to keep going. Subjective meaning is beside the point.


Subjective meaning is _not_ besides the point. People do not seem to act differently whether the meaning they hold to is objective or subjective, so there is not a practical difference between the two.


----------



## Garlic

DavidA said:


> Creatures called human beings! Your arguments don't add up to reality. It is not superstition that stands in the way of determinism but common sense and observation.


What special properties do human brains have that exempt them from the laws that govern everything else we know? I've asked this several times on the thread but haven't got a satisfactory response.

Appeals to "common sense" are really just appeals to knee jerk prejudice. You have to do better than that.


----------



## Ramako

Garlic said:


> As usual in these discussions, the only objection to determinism seems to be "I don't like the sound of it".


Well, tbh, when it comes down to it that's more or less the only intellectual argument I know of against anything which isn't just a contradiction in terms.

You seem to find pure empiricism an appealing viewpoint. That is why I always liked mathematics and never liked science: I never did find it appealing.


----------



## Ramako

Garlic said:


> What special properties do human brains have that exempt them from the laws that govern everything else we know? I've asked this several times on the thread but haven't got a satisfactory response.


Consciousness is the most obvious one, but it doesn't really bother me, because making _for all_ statements about 'laws' on the basis of finite proofs remains irksome to me.


----------



## brianvds

This thread has now really kind of run away from me, so I did not read all the posts on free will in detail. 

It seems to me that part of the problem is what we mean by "free." But whatever we mean, decisions originate in the brain, which is a mechanism that operates entirely in accordance with the laws of nature. That doesn't leave much room for free will.

But of course, the illusion of a free will is so powerful that we don't really have any choice other than to live as if there is such a thing.


----------



## Chrythes

Other animals probably have consciousness as well. Simple mirror tests (animals that perceive the image seen in the mirror as themselves) are a hint to that.

I think that determinism is perceived as on over simplified concept by some. The behaviour that you do is determined by a huge variety of factors - genes, past experience, future plans, present factors associated with the dilemma etc. It's not merely a switch with on and off.


----------



## moody

Garlic said:


> I don't think it's acceptable to make anyone suffer. Those who infringe on others' rights need to be dealt with and attempts should be made to alter their behaviour. But it still doesn't make them responsible for what they do. This gives them too much credit.
> 
> If mentally ill people are not to be held accountable, where do you draw the line? At what point does a psychologically damaged person become mentally ill and therefore not responsible for their behaviour?


They are not mentally ill unless certified mentally ill.


----------



## DavidA

Garlic said:


> What special properties do human brains have that exempt them from the laws that govern everything else we know? I've asked this several times on the thread but haven't got a satisfactory response.
> 
> Appeals to "common sense" are really just appeals to knee jerk prejudice. You have to do better than that.


And you had better do better than that. You have no point giving any reason whatsoever why your so-called determinism is true. It is not! I happen to live in the real world and I'm surrounded by people who I observe every day. And this theory is simply not true in real life.


----------



## millionrainbows

_heeeyyy,_ i'm just a mass of atoms! _wwwwwhhhhttt!!!! _koff koff! _aaaahhhh! _and exhale.....:lol:


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Sorry to offend you. I am just stating what happens in real life. Your arguments are based on an intellectual pseudoscience theory which has no basis in reality. We'll just do not act like that in real life. So it proves that we don't really believe it.
> 
> In any case Harris' arguments are not to be trusted. According to his theory they are just predetermined by his neurons and the chemical make-up of the body, not to mention the physics and chemistry of the universe. They are predetermined. They are not a product of his free will so cannot be trusted to be right.
> 
> To accuse me of aunt sallying says to me that you to make that you have run out of argument. However as your arguments are a predetermined factor that are predetermined anyway then please don't worry about it. And by the same argument, your own concept of predetermination is an illusion just as you say my belief in free will is.


No offence taken.

So, your counter arguments are to claim that real life tells you something different than life as explained in a pseudo-scientific theory; and to ironically pretend to adopt Harris' (alleged) position to reject what he and I have to say on the matter as flawed due to pre-determination.

It's not really a lot to get my teeth into, is it, especially given the degree of repetition? I suppose a simple riposte might be that there's no point pursuing any argument with anyone as the exchanges and outcomes are wholly pre-determined.


----------



## millionrainbows

wwwhhhttt! ahhhhhh......what were we talking about??? Ta ha! koff! koff!


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> No offence taken.
> 
> So, your counter arguments are to claim that real life tells you something different than life as explained in a pseudo-scientific theory; and to ironically pretend to adopt Harris' (alleged) position to reject what he and I have to say on the matter as flawed due to pre-determination.
> 
> It's not really a lot to get my teeth into, is it, especially given the degree of repetition? I suppose a simple riposte might be that there's no point pursuing any argument with anyone as the exchanges and outcomes are wholly pre-determined.


Yes. If you believe the logical conclusion of what Harris says. There is no point even in discussing things 'cause it's all pre-determined. His atheism is pre-determined and he had no free will in choosing it any more than the Archbishop had a choice to be a believer. Never mind, if you believe in the multiverse, there might be a dimension where Richard Dawkins is the Pope and Harris is the Archbishop of Canterbury. All pre- determined, of course!


----------



## Chrythes

It's not the point. If your brain decides how you are going to act in a certain situation it doesn't mean that it's always going to be the same, since the circumstances would probably always differ - a mere chance of tripping on a brick on your way to the theater. Your life goals and world views are not predetermined if our actions are not the result of a free will. Our environment is constantly changing, thus our decisions cannot in their essence lead to a predetermined result. It's our constant adaption and brain analysis of our every living second that leads to endless possibilities with the aid of chance, genetic predisposition, life experience and many other factors.


----------



## DavidA

Chrythes said:


> It's not the point. If your brain decides how you are going to act in a certain situation it doesn't mean that it's always going to be the same, since the circumstances would probably always differ - a mere chance of tripping on a brick on your way to the theater. Your life goals and world views are not predetermined if our actions are not the result of a free will. Our environment is constantly changing, thus our decisions cannot in their essence lead to a predetermined result. It's our constant adaption and brain analysis of our every living second that leads to endless possibilities with the aid of chance, genetic predisposition, life experience and many other factors.


But someone has said that everything comes from the Big Bang. So all these things must be pre-determined, surely. I wonder where that pre-determined brick is?


----------



## Chrythes

DavidA said:


> But someone has said that everything comes from the Big Bang. So all these things must be pre-determined, surely. I wonder where that pre-determined brick is?


I disagree with this view. But i think it's a different topic, since the discussion initially began with the premise that we do not choose our actions consciously, but rather our brain has decided for 'us' (whatever it is) a few milliseconds ago. Now we are discussing if everything we do is essentially predetermined, e.g our life goals. For the first I say yes, but I must disagree with the second (to a certain point I think some things are predetermined due to our early life experience and genes) one, since mere chance can lead to different outcomes.


----------



## DavidA

Chrythes said:


> I disagree with this view. But i think it's a different topic, since the discussion initially began with the premise that we do not choose our actions consciously, but rather our brain has decided for 'us' (whatever it is) a few milliseconds ago. Now we are discussing if everything we do is essentially predetermined, e.g our life goals. For the first I say yes, but I must disagree with the second (to a certain point I think some things are predetermined due to our early life experience and genes) one, since mere chance can lead to different outcomes.


I will leave this as my last comment as we are far from talking about pot.

Harris' pre determinism has a blatantly self contradictory point that he, with evangelical zeal, seeks to convert others to his point of view, that of fundamentalist atheism. Now if we are predetermined, then why try and change people's points of view? It shows by his actions that he really does not believe the logical conclusion of his own thesis. If it's all down to neurons in the brain who's to tell what truth is anyway?


----------



## Garlic

If everything is predetermined, we can't help trying to change people's points of view. I don't see what you're getting at. I also disagree that complexity or chaos means things aren't predetermined. But you're right, we are way off topic now.


----------



## Chrythes

Either way, don't let your kids (or at least your rodents) smoke the chill -

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130724125028.htm


----------



## Garlic

Oh well, too late now


----------



## Guest

Chrythes said:


> Either way, don't let your kids (or at least your rodents) smoke the chill -
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130724125028.htm


Now if Harris smoked marijuana as an adolescent . . . .


----------



## brianvds

DrMike said:


> Now if Harris smoked marijuana as an adolescent . . . .


I'm sure there are many who are of the opinion that that is exactly what he did...


----------



## niv

Wittgenstein would probably tell everybody that "predeterminism" and "free will" are just words that are confusing you.


----------



## DavidA

niv said:


> Wittgenstein would probably tell everybody that "predeterminism" and "free will" are just words that are confusing you.


Philosophers make a living out of confusing people!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Philosophers make a living out of confusing people!


...or entertaining people! They don't 'confuse' me. At least, it's not the first word I would use to describe what they do (I'm not claiming to follow all the arguments of all philosophers!)


----------



## aleazk

Human beings exist because the laws of nature do not prevent the formation of beings with these characteristics. Then, even when the probability for the formation of these beings is quite low, when combined with the vastness in time and space of the universe, and processes of evolution like natural selection, this low probability is relativized by all this and it's clear that arguments about some "special", "divine", force behind the creation of human beings are not necessary. 
This also means that human existence does not have any particular, "special", purpose, in a metaphysical sense. 
Consciousness is just the brain working, a way the brain has to organize the information and to operate. And it's just a natural process. In the same way a gas goes from a zone of high pressure to a zone of low pressure. All human processes are natural processes. They seem complex and "singular" because we are watching the result of billions of years of evolution. 
Now, said that, maybe consciousness is something special, in the following sense. Maybe future physics will discover physical processes which produce that the matter involved in these processes experiments a state of consciousness. In that case, many entities in the universe which are complex enough can experiment consciousness. This interpretation of consciousness is suggested by some authors, like philosopher Olaf Stapledon and physicist Roger Penrose (in his interpretation of quantum mechanics).
Of course, these are only wild speculations today. We are still very far away of having a complete understanding of the physical processes involved in consciousness.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> Of course, these are only wild speculations today. We are still very far away of having a complete understanding of the physical processes involved in consciousness.


So, while those miserable scientists continue with their wild speculations, there's still a gap for alternative explanations.

Come on guys, get a move on - we need it all tied up and sorted before the world's theocracies implode and we're all brought nearer to our maker!


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> Human beings exist because the laws of nature do not prevent the formation of beings with these characteristics. Then, even when the probability for the formation of these beings is quite low, when combined with the vastness in time and space of the universe, and processes of evolution like natural selection, this low probability is relativized by all this and it's clear that arguments about some "special", "divine", force behind the creation of human beings are not necessary.
> This also means that human existence does not have any particular, "special", purpose, in a metaphysical sense.
> Consciousness is just the brain working, a way the brain has to organize the information and to operate. And it's just a natural process. In the same way a gas goes from a zone of high pressure to a zone of low pressure. All human processes are natural processes. They seem complex and "singular" because we are watching the result of billions of years of evolution.
> Now, said that, maybe consciousness is something special, in the following sense. Maybe future physics will discover physical processes which produce that the matter involved in these processes experiments a state of consciousness. In that case, many entities in the universe which are complex enough can experiment consciousness. This interpretation of consciousness is suggested by some authors, like philosopher Olaf Stapledon and physicist Roger Penrose (in his interpretation of quantum mechanics).
> Of course, these are only wild speculations today. We are still very far away of having a complete understanding of the physical processes involved in consciousness.


So where is the law of nature that prevents the existence of a higher being with a much clearer grasp on the laws that control the universe and could thus potentially control things like creation?


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> So, while those miserable scientists continue with their wild speculations, there's still a gap for alternative explanations.
> 
> Come on guys, get a move on - we need it all tied up and sorted before the world's theocracies implode and we're all brought nearer to our maker!


Some of science is wild speculation - what most of us (being a scientist myself) refer to as "hand waving." There is a lot we don't know. Now, currently, I don't know of a good scientific test for the existence of a higher power, so that is outside the purview of science. But simply going on scientific concepts like evolution, and the age of the universe and such, isn't it being a bit naive to assume that we are the pinnacle of what the universe has thus far been able to produce? If all life is in constant flux and evolving, why could there not be some being out there who has a much greater grasp of the laws of the universe and a greater capacity to manipulate those laws? We are learning how to create life now through cloning. Scientists continue to attempt to recreate the conditions that might have produced the spark that created the first life on this planet. If we believe that we can someday unlock these secrets, is it so hard to even fathom that there is some being out there who is several steps ahead of us?


----------



## Chrythes

Mike, what do you think about the change of religion over time? The most evident is the shift from polytheism to monotheism. What is your view about the former being the first manifestation of religion, or essentially belief?


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> Some of science is wild speculation - what most of us (being a scientist myself) refer to as "hand waving." There is a lot we don't know.


And quite right too: I don't want taxpayer's money going into researching what we already know! I expect scientists to hypothesise. It's as much a part of the method (and as invaluable) as kicking the ball is invaluable to football, or catching the ball is to baseball or...you get the point?



DrMike said:


> Now, currently, I don't know of a good scientific test for the existence of a higher power, so that is outside the purview of science.


For now, but not for ever, necessarily. Presumably, one of the fields of science that is still evolving is the development of tests for things that were previously untestable - radio waves, for example.



DrMike said:


> But simply going on scientific concepts like evolution, and the age of the universe and such, isn't it being a bit naive to assume that we are the pinnacle of what the universe has thus far been able to produce? If all life is in constant flux and evolving, why could there not be some being out there who has a much greater grasp of the laws of the universe and a greater capacity to manipulate those laws? We are learning how to create life now through cloning. Scientists continue to attempt to recreate the conditions that might have produced the spark that created the first life on this planet. If we believe that we can someday unlock these secrets, is it so hard to even fathom that there is some being out there who is several steps ahead of us?


Who is 'simply' going on such narrow (yet such complicated things)? The problem is that the case _for _a higher being has been argued on several fronts (not usually including science) over millennia, and the case _against _has tended to focus on the specifics of a particular type of higher being, rather than a generalised non-specific principle.


----------



## Guest

I am not enough of a historian to say. Are you saying that it was all polytheistic, and then shifted to monotheistic, or that polytheism predominated earlier, and then shifted towards monotheism, but that both existed simultaneously, but have been disproportionately represented?

I personally believe that there has always been only one correct faith, but that throughout time, people have established other religious systems that have some portion of the truth while lacking its totality.


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> I personally believe that there has always been only one correct faith, but that throughout time, people have established other religious systems that have some portion of the truth while lacking its totality.


Personally I am sympathetic to the Hindu view that all religious systems are an imperfect human realization of part of the unknowable supreme deity, each with an inflection of the truth.

I am unsympathetic to the views of relatively juvenile religions like the various sects of Christianity and Islam who believe their religion to be the "restoration" of the only "correct" faith by means of authentic prophecy while everybody else's prophecy is false or misguided.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> ...or entertaining people! They don't 'confuse' me. At least, it's not the first word I would use to describe what they do (I'm not claiming to follow all the arguments of all philosophers!)


Philosophers specialise in the art of making the obvious appear complicated.


----------



## DavidA

aleazk said:


> Human beings exist because the laws of nature do not prevent the formation of beings with these characteristics. Then, even when the probability for the formation of these beings is quite low, when combined with the vastness in time and space of the universe, and processes of evolution like natural selection, this low probability is relativized by all this and it's clear that arguments about some "special", "divine", force behind the creation of human beings are not necessary.
> This also means that human existence does not have any particular, "special", purpose, in a metaphysical sense.
> Consciousness is just the brain working, a way the brain has to organize the information and to operate. And it's just a natural process. In the same way a gas goes from a zone of high pressure to a zone of low pressure. All human processes are natural processes. They seem complex and "singular" because we are watching the result of billions of years of evolution.
> Now, said that, maybe consciousness is something special, in the following sense. Maybe future physics will discover physical processes which produce that the matter involved in these processes experiments a state of consciousness. In that case, many entities in the universe which are complex enough can experiment consciousness. This interpretation of consciousness is suggested by some authors, like philosopher Olaf Stapledon and physicist Roger Penrose (in his interpretation of quantum mechanics).
> Of course, these are only wild speculations today. We are still very far away of having a complete understanding of the physical processes involved in consciousness.


I think the term 'wild speculations' is correct. There is much of so-called 'science' that is trotted out as fact when it is actually speculation.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Philosophers specialise in the art of making the obvious appear complicated.





DavidA said:


> I think the term 'wild speculations' is correct. There is much of so-called 'science' that is trotted out as fact when it is actually speculation.


Care to give any examples?


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Care to give any examples?


Theory of the multiverse is a recent example.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> And quite right too: I don't want taxpayer's money going into researching what we already know! I expect scientists to hypothesise. It's as much a part of the method (and as invaluable) as kicking the ball is invaluable to football, or catching the ball is to baseball or...you get the point?


Hmmm, theoretically that is how it goes. In practice, though, government is not funding as much really unknown research. You have to really have a pretty good idea what kind of results you will have to get them to fund you. There are some funding mechanisms out there for more "risky" high risk, large payoff research, but not as much. We are into incremental science right now. "Safe" research in general is what is funded. Hand waving isn't hypothesizing. Hand waving is what you do when you reach out beyond what you can hypothesize. And nobody funds you for hand waving.

As for a scientific test for the existence of God, I just don't know if it is possible. And then there would still be skeptics (just as there is in pretty much at least 90% of science). And if you try to get into proving that God doesn't exist, that is an impossibility - try proving a negative.

Religion and science are always going to have some areas of disagreement. I have no problem with that. I think in the past, where they have clashed, it has been over concepts that weren't necessarily of God, rather of our imperfect understanding of God. And just because you can prove an alternative possibility for something does not mean that is how things happened. Nature is full of redundant systems, where there is typically not one pathway alone.

But anyways, this is all off topic.


----------



## Garlic

DavidA said:


> Theory of the multiverse is a recent example.


Maybe presented as fact in some popular science contexts but I think most cosmologists would be more cautious.


----------



## DavidA

Garlic said:


> Maybe presented as fact in some popular science contexts but I think most cosmologists would be more cautious.


Agreed. But to read the popular media one could have assumed is was fact.


----------



## aleazk

DavidA said:


> Philosophers specialise in the art of making the obvious appear complicated.


And what would they be these obvious things?.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Theory of the multiverse is a recent example.


I think you've been smoking too much pot. Unless you're going to offer more specifics to illustrate how scientists trot the multiverse out as 'fact', I'll assume you've been listening to Brian Cox and Stephen Hawking through some smoky fug!

What about philosophers complicating the obvious?

(Thread duty: I have limited opinions on pot. I smoked it once. Like the driver at a party where everyone else drinks, I've been bored out of my skull in the company of spaced-out potheads. Both my sons have tried it. I could wish we didn't live in a society where people feel the need to take mind-altering substances, but as I get older, I can see that if you've already realised the pointlessness of life and are struggling to find your purpose, drugs might well be a mighty relief!)


----------



## brianvds

Five Mind-Blowing Charts on the War on Pot

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...tter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> I think you've been smoking too much pot. Unless you're going to offer more specifics to illustrate how scientists trot the multiverse out as 'fact', I'll assume you've been listening to Brian Cox and Stephen Hawking through some smoky fug!
> 
> What about philosophers complicating the obvious?
> 
> (Thread duty: I have limited opinions on pot. I smoked it once. Like the driver at a party where everyone else drinks, I've been bored out of my skull in the company of spaced-out potheads. Both my sons have tried it. I could wish we didn't live in a society where people feel the need to take mind-altering substances, but as I get older, I can see that if you've already realised the pointlessness of life and are struggling to find your purpose, drugs might well be a mighty relief!)


It may have escaped you that the general public doesn't generally go in the reading science journals. Their only way to science is through celebrities like Hawking and Cox. What they say the public generally believes. I mean, how many people swallowed Hawking's daft comment that 'Philosophy is dead' without realising that it was in itself a philosophical statement!

My comments on philosophers come through reading them. Where they are right they usually complicate the obvious. Very often they are wrong in which case they hide their errors beneath complicated argument.


----------



## Garlic

DavidA said:


> It may have escaped you that the general public doesn't generally go in the reading science journals. Their only way to science is through celebrities like Hawking and Cox. What they say the public generally believes. I mean, how many people swallowed Hawking's daft comment that 'Philosophy is dead' without realising that it was in itself a philosophical statement!
> 
> My comments on philosophers come through reading them. Where they are right they usually complicate the obvious. Very often they are wrong in which case they hide their errors beneath complicated argument.


I agree with you regarding some strains of continental philosophy, which seem to consist of banal or deliberately self-contradictory statements worded in a needlessly obscure way. I think this stuff has had its day though, people have seen through it and most contemporary philosophers are more sensible.

Hawking's comment was silly, a lot of the more speculative theoretical physics could be considered a specialised form of philosophy, and maybe he hasn't always been clear enough about what is established science and what is (informed) speculation. I can sort of see where he's coming from in that a lot of the traditional "problems" of philosophy have been solved or shown to be irrelevant by science.


----------



## DavidA

Garlic said:


> I agree with you regarding some strains of continental philosophy, which seem to consist of banal or deliberately self-contradictory statements worded in a needlessly obscure way. I think this stuff has had its day though, people have seen through it and most contemporary philosophers are more sensible.
> 
> Hawking's comment was silly, a lot of the more speculative theoretical physics could be considered a specialised form of philosophy, and maybe he hasn't always been clear enough about what is established science and what is (informed) speculation. I can sort of see where he's coming from in that a lot of the traditional "problems" of philosophy have been solved or shown to be irrelevant by science.


Hawking didn't seem to know when physics ends and meta- physics begins.


----------



## aleazk

DavidA said:


> Hawking didn't seem to know when physics ends and meta- physics begins.


This is incorrect and shows poor knowledge of epistemology.
All scientific theories have a metaphysical core embedded in their formalism. Often, this metaphysical core is composed by certain assumptions about the ontological properties of the objects of study. For example, the notions of simultaneous and immutable time in newtonian theory. Or, also in newtonian theory, the notions of particle for which the values of its observables are always well defined and change in a continuous way. These are clearly notions related to the ontological questions of, what is time really?, what's really a particle?. In pre-darwinian theory, the notion of specie as something immutable is also a supposition of this kind.
But science is something which evolves and corrects itself. Previous theories are replaced by new theories which make many more predictions, more accurate, more subtle, etc.
These new theories have their own formalism and their own metaphysical core, which replaces the old one. In this way, these assumptions about the ontological properties of the objects of study are indirectly tested by the scientific method.
In the 20th century, we witnessed how dramatic this process can be. The ideas of time of newtonian theory have been replaced by the ideas of General Relativity, in which simultaneity is not absolute and in which spacetime is not immutable, but is affected by matter and is dynamic, to the point in which the theory predicts it has a beginning. This certainly is an incredible advance in the study of the ontology of time. Quantum Mechanics shows that the spectrum of an observable can be discrete and that the value of this observable is not always defined. So, our naive newtonian ideas of what's a particle are questioned by this. In the example of the old notion of species as something immutable, darwinian theory destroys this notion.
All this are advances in the understanding of ontology, which is the most exciting branch of metaphysics. Of course, science is not going to answer directly what time is, but as this process of replacement of theories takes place, our understanding of ontology also moves, and to a more refined knowledge.
So, I wouldn't say that the traditional problems of philosophy have been solved or shown to be irrelevant by science, but we certainly have made an advance in our understanding of them, maybe the first time in the history of these concepts. And, an advance made by science, not by philosophers. That's why Hawking says what he says.


----------



## Couchie

aleazk said:


> So, I wouldn't say that the traditional problems of philosophy have been solved or shown to be irrelevant by science, but we certainly have made an advance in our understanding of them, maybe the first time in the history of these concepts. And, an advance made by science, not by philosophers. That's why Hawking says what he says.


In another thread you scoffed when I said "philosophy is bullsh*t". And here you say effectively that for all the centuries of debate, philosophy has never made any advance in understanding its own "traditional problems of philosophy"... If not bullsh*t, that amounts to philosophy being a very long exercise in futility.

Scientists can prove each other's theories wrong with new observations to the contrary of those theories, but philosophers argue endlessly over the nature of the observed (and more frivolously, unobserved) universe because, well, they believe different things about things.


----------



## aleazk

Couchie said:


> In another thread you scoffed when I said "philosophy is bullsh*t". And here you say effectively that for all the centuries of debate, philosophy has never made any advance in understanding its own "traditional problems of philosophy"... If not bullsh*t, that amounts to philosophy being a very long exercise in futility.
> 
> Scientists can prove each other's theories wrong with new observations to the contrary of those theories, but philosophers argue endlessly over the nature of the observed (and more frivolously, unobserved) universe because, well, they believe different things about things.


Well, what you say here is true in some cases. But philosophy is a very broad thing. And, also, those speculations are not a waste of time. Sometimes they are useful for understanding the new discoveries. Our current views are certainly influenced by Kant, Descartes, and all those guys. Of course, maybe they were wrong in some details, but to discard all as "****"?... Often what is important is the setup of a conceptual framework. And these guys effectively cleaned the concepts from superfluous things. The discussion of a concept is never futile. They, for example, established the independence of metaphysics as something which can be investigated, separated from religion, for example. We are now watching the result of centuries of work on these concepts. 
I was trying to clarify the context of Hawking's phrase, that's all. I agree with it, in the sense that science has something to say about metaphysics that has not been said before. 
The thing I do think is **** is postmodern philosophy.


----------



## mmsbls

aleazk said:


> I was trying to clarify the context of Hawking's phrase, that's all. I agree with it, in the sense that science has something to say about metaphysics that has not been said before.
> The thing I do think is **** is postmodern philosophy.


I agree with both statements above. Philosophy can be fascinating and extremely useful in clarifying ideas. Some philosophy deals with things like "what is good" and "how ought we to act". Those are, for me, necessary philosophical endeavors. When philosophy focuses on concepts such as space, time, or consciousness, I feel that is really the purview of scientists. Physicists learned much more about space and time in a quarter century than philosophers learned in 2000 years.

As an empiricist, I'm not so happy watching philosophers argue about the contents of a box. Instead, I want to open the box and look inside. The world is simply to hard to understand purely theoretically.


----------



## Couchie

aleazk said:


> Well, what you say here is true in some cases. But philosophy is a very broad thing. And, also, those speculations are not a waste of time. Sometimes they are useful for understanding the new discoveries. Our current views are certainly influenced by Kant, Descartes, and all those guys. Of course, maybe they were wrong in some details, but to discard all as "****"?... Often what is important is the setup of a conceptual framework. And these guys effectively cleaned the concepts from superfluous things. The discussion of a concept is never futile. They, for example, established the independence of metaphysics as something which can be investigated, separated from religion, for example. We are now watching the result of centuries of work on these concepts.
> I was trying to clarify the context of Hawking's phrase, that's all. I agree with it, in the sense that science has something to say about metaphysics that has not been said before.
> The thing I do think is **** is postmodern philosophy.


We are probably not in disagreement - you're right, "philosophy" is a broad term and means different things to different people. Let us not delve deeper into this pie however lest we encroach on metaphilosophy and I don't think anybody wants that.


----------



## aleazk

mmsbls said:


> I agree with both statements above. Philosophy can be fascinating and extremely useful in clarifying ideas. Some philosophy deals with things like "what is good" and "how ought we to act". Those are, for me, necessary philosophical endeavors. When philosophy focuses on concepts such as space, time, or consciousness, I feel that is really the purview of scientists. Physicists learned much more about space and time in a quarter century than philosophers learned in 2000 years.
> 
> As an empiricist, I'm not so happy watching philosophers argue about the contents of a box. Instead, I want to open the box and look inside. The world is simply to hard to understand purely theoretically.


Or why not a second possibility: scientists and philosophers working together. Scientists being informed of the philosophical content of their theories, and philosophers being informed of the new discoveries of science.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

But wait scientists in Australia have just made a great new discovery in the combined fields of Quantum Politics and PhilosoPhysics.

*CSIRO Finds Exciting New Element*

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) of Australia.

CSIRO has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science.
The new element is Governmentium (Gv). It has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lefton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons or protons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction normally taking less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years. It does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons. All of the money is consumed in the exchange, and no other byproducts are produced.

Particle proportions vary from country to country sometimes taking different nomenclature, however the physical properties remain virtually identical throughout the known world.


----------



## DavidA

aleazk said:


> This is incorrect and shows poor knowledge of epistemology.
> All scientific theories have a metaphysical core embedded in their formalism. Often, this metaphysical core is composed by certain assumptions about the ontological properties of the objects of study. For example, the notions of simultaneous and immutable time in newtonian theory. Or, also in newtonian theory, the notions of particle for which the values of its observables are always well defined and change in a continuous way. These are clearly notions related to the ontological questions of, what is time really?, what's really a particle?. In pre-darwinian theory, the notion of specie as something immutable is also a supposition of this kind.
> But science is something which evolves and corrects itself. Previous theories are replaced by new theories which make many more predictions, more accurate, more subtle, etc.
> These new theories have their own formalism and their own metaphysical core, which replaces the old one. In this way, these assumptions about the ontological properties of the objects of study are indirectly tested by the scientific method.
> In the 20th century, we witnessed how dramatic this process can be. The ideas of time of newtonian theory have been replaced by the ideas of General Relativity, in which simultaneity is not absolute and in which spacetime is not immutable, but is affected by matter and is dynamic, to the point in which the theory predicts it has a beginning. This certainly is an incredible advance in the study of the ontology of time. Quantum Mechanics shows that the spectrum of an observable can be discrete and that the value of this observable is not always defined. So, our naive newtonian ideas of what's a particle are questioned by this. In the example of the old notion of species as something immutable, darwinian theory destroys this notion.
> All this are advances in the understanding of ontology, which is the most exciting branch of metaphysics. Of course, science is not going to answer directly what time is, but as this process of replacement of theories takes place, our understanding of ontology also moves, and to a more refined knowledge.
> So, I wouldn't say that the traditional problems of philosophy have been solved or shown to be irrelevant by science, but we certainly have made an advance in our understanding of them, maybe the first time in the history of these concepts. And, an advance made by science, not by philosophers. That's why Hawking says what he says.


The man who originally made the statement about Hawking not seeing where physics ended and metaphysics began was Professor John Lennox. Lennox is a British mathematician and philosopher of science who is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford. He is a Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford University.
Perhaps you would like to correct him on his poor epistemology?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> It may have escaped you that the general public doesn't generally go in the reading science journals. Their only way to science is through celebrities like Hawking and Cox. What they say the public generally believes. I mean, how many people swallowed Hawking's daft comment that 'Philosophy is dead' without realising that it was in itself a philosophical statement!
> 
> My comments on philosophers come through reading them. Where they are right they usually complicate the obvious. Very often they are wrong in which case they hide their errors beneath complicated argument.


"The public" can't be trusted as a barometer of what is and is not a valid opinion, and is in any case not relevant to what you have asserted here at TC. I note that you still don't give any examples. That leaves your assertion as unfounded as Stephen Hawking's.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> The man who originally made the statement about Hawking not seeing where physics ended and metaphysics began was Professor John Lennox. Lennox is a British mathematician and philosopher of science who is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford. He is a Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford University.
> Perhaps you would like to correct him on his poor epistemology?


I'd rather read aleazk any day! :devil:


----------



## Guest

Hawking's public pronouncements (such as 'philosophy is dead') may be no more than showmanship: you'd have to interrogate the man himself to find out how strongly he is committed to this idea. The book was co-written and perhaps Leonard Mlodinow was the showman (though he too is a physicist who has written books with showy titles such as _The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives)_.

I won't pretend to understand all the science of _The Grand Design_, from which the quote originates, but I did understand what he wrote in the introduction, and did not get hung up on the provocative. He went on to explain that '[philosophy] has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.' (p5)

On the issue of whether science offers us certainty or theory, the book also says this:

"We will describe how M-theory _may _offer answers to the question of creation." (p8. my italics)

Read the rest of the book with this conditional in mind, and also, always bear in mind that Hawking has a book to sell. This doesn't render either his science or his philosophy invalid. It just it makes it more widely known than Lennox, or any number of other 'searchers after truth' (scientists, philosophers, et al) whose skin Hawking got under by his statement.

Philosophy can, of course, come back to life, by catching up with what science now knows.


----------



## mmsbls

aleazk said:


> Or why not a second possibility: scientists and philosophers working together. Scientists being informed of the philosophical content of their theories, and philosophers being informed of the new discoveries of science.


I have no problem with that idea. We once had a philosopher give a talk about Einstein at our weekly physics colloquium. After the talk and questions, all the physicists except me left, but several philosophers remained to continue the discussion. The philosophers were complaining that physicists were rather ignorant of philosophy. The one who gave the talk agreed but added that physicists do not really need philosophy to do physics well. On the other hand, the opposite is often not true depending on the philosopher's field of study.


----------



## aleazk

DavidA said:


> The man who originally made the statement about Hawking not seeing where physics ended and metaphysics began was Professor John Lennox. Lennox is a British mathematician and philosopher of science who is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford. He is a Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford University.
> Perhaps you would like to correct him on his poor epistemology?


I don't care who said it, it's incorrect... I would say Hawking knows very well the relation between physics and metaphysics, that's why he made that provocative phrase. As a calling of attention for philosophers to wake up.
"Physicists don't know when physics end and when metaphysics begin", that's a really silly thing to say. Why don't you go and say that to Newton, Mach, Poincare, Einstein, Bohr. All great scientists very interested in the relation between physics and metaphysics.
Thank god Hawking is a continuator of that school.
And it would be nice if you can answer by yourself instead of appealing to fallacies.


----------



## aleazk

mmsbls said:


> I have no problem with that idea. We once had a philosopher give a talk about Einstein at our weekly physics colloquium. After the talk and questions, all the physicists except me left, but several philosophers remained to continue the discussion. The philosophers were complaining that physicists were rather ignorant of philosophy. The one who gave the talk agreed but added that physicists do not really need philosophy to do physics well. On the other hand, the opposite is often not true depending on the philosopher's field of study.


Well, it depends what do you understand by doing it well. If you mean doing calculations and predictions once a theory is established, then I agree. But for having a good and profound understanding of the concepts involved, their interpretation and philosophical implications, and the world view they show, I don't think so. You end in abominations like the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics.
Of course the first one is far more relevant for technological development. But the second is also important for physics to be a coherent thing.


----------



## mmsbls

MacLeod said:


> I won't pretend to understand all the science of _The Grand Design_, from which the quote originates, but I did understand what he wrote in the introduction, and did not get hung up on the provocative. He went on to explain that '[philosophy] has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.' (p5)
> 
> On the issue of whether science offers us certainty or theory, the book also says this:
> 
> "We will describe how M-theory _may _offer answers to the question of creation." (p8. my italics)


I thought _The Grand Design_ was fun and interesting. In general I greatly enjoy reading extrapolations of well understood science (especially physics) into areas that are yet uncertain. As you suggest, I think they did a reasonable job in providing both entertainment along with knowledge. I have no trouble distinguishing between physics that is well established and physics that is speculative, but non-physicists may not necessarily know the difference.

An example of a book that did not properly distinguish between the known and unknown is Tipler's _The Physics of Immortality_. It's one of the wildest books I've ever read, and I imagine that many people were more than a bit confused or mislead.


----------



## mmsbls

aleazk said:


> Well, it depends what do you understand by doing it well. If you mean doing calculations and predictions once a theory is established, then I agree. But for having a good and profound understanding of the concepts involved, their interpretation and philosophical implications, and the world view they show, I don't think so. You end in abominations like the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics.
> Of course the first one is far more relevant for technologic development. But the second is also important for physics to be a coherent thing.


I know what you mean, and I'm not surprised that we might disagree here. I, of course, do wish physics to be coherent, but I view theories as statements about what we measure in the real world. If theories make correct predictions as we test them more and more precisely and extensively, I view them as tentatively correct. On the other hand, is something like a virtual photon a real thing? It works almost unimaginably well in our theories, but I have trouble believing that every electron in my body is exchanging virtual photons with every other charged particle in the universe. When my work regularly involved quantum mechanics, I did not spend much time wondering about the Many Worlds vs. the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. I just calculated. But then I'm just an experimentalist.


----------



## Guest

For the averagely educated reader, encounters with general philosophy were, I think, not too difficult to manage. That does not mean that philosophers from Aristotle to Zeno don't deal with difficult ideas, but their arguments tended to pose puzzles, analogies, speculations or stories that were largely in touch with 'real life' - even when they talked about intangibles such as 'god'.

Encounters with physics and maths are, in my opinion, much more problematic if your average education got you as far as knowing how to do long division, but quadratic equations and trigonometry are hazy memories from school!

Consequently, when physics, maths and certain branches of philosophy meet - as it is right that they should - Joe Public doesn't stand a chance. It therefore behoves public advocates for these disciplines to take care that they avoid the use of absolutes. I also believe it behoves the media not to misrepresent them, and for the reader to exercise a degree of scepticism when reading either what the media says about Hawking, or what Hawking himself writes.

In the community of TC, it is a regular gripe that some posters only want to deal in absolutes and generalisations (most commonly, it seems, about atonal music or Mozart). If most here agree that such tactics are to be avoided with regard to music (a challengeable assumption) it should also be avoided in other threads about philosophers, physics, tea, pot, moderators, etc, etc, etc...


----------



## DavidA

aleazk said:


> I don't care who said it, it's incorrect... I would say Hawking knows very well the relation between physics and metaphysics, that's why he made that provocative phrase. As a calling of attention for philosophers to wake up.
> "Physicists don't know when physics end and when metaphysics begin", that's a really silly thing to say. Why don't you go and say that to Newton, Mach, Poincare, Einstein, Bohr. All great scientists very interested in the relation between physics and metaphysics.
> Thank god Hawking is a continuator of that school.
> And it would be nice if you can answer by yourself instead of appealing to fallacies.


Sorry! By any measure of semantics, Hawking was wrong! Period!

I have never noticed that Newton et al said that philosophy was dead. They probably had more sense! I think the fallacies tend to be on your side of the fence!


----------



## starthrower

The only pot I've got is around my waist.


----------



## aleazk

DavidA said:


> Hawking was wrong! Period!


Nice arguments...
From all the people who said something in this thread, you are the only one who didn't give sound fundaments. You don't even answer the questions and fundaments given by others. Clearly you are not intersted in discussing the topic.
Hawking's phrase has been addressed in all its possible meanings. We discussed to what extent is true, and to what extent is an exaggeration. You, on the other hand, make statements like "Hawking didn't seem to know when physics ends and meta- physics begins.", or "Hawking was wrong! Period!", without making any further development...


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Hawking was wrong


Suppose we get over the fact that Hawking has said something that you assert is 'wrong'. Even if it were to be accepted that on the issue of the death of philosophy - what then?


----------



## DavidA

aleazk said:


> Nice arguments...
> From all the people who said something in this thread, you are the only one who didn't give sound fundaments. You don't even answer the questions and fundaments given by others. Clearly you are not intersted in discussing the topic.
> Hawking's phrase has been addressed in all its possible meanings. We discussed to what extent is true, and to what extent is an exaggeration. You, on the other hand, make statements like "Hawking didn't seem to know when physics ends and meta- physics begins.", or "Hawking was wrong! Period!", without making any further development...


You seem to want to complicate things. If you just think about it you will see that Hawking was wrong in what he said. If you can't understand it then I suggest you study the semantics.


----------



## Tristan

Still trying to figure out how a discussion of marijuana turned into a discussion of ontology...

But then again, maybe it makes perfect sense


----------



## Ramako

Tristan said:


> Still trying to figure out how a discussion of marijuana turned into a discussion of ontology...
> 
> But then again, maybe it makes perfect sense


Perfect post lol


----------



## Guest

Back to the 'pot' topic, I post this link to an article in The Guardian about legislation moves in Uruguay.
For the record, I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, putting this plant on the same footing as tobacco and alcohol.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/01/uruguay-first-legal-marijuana-market


----------



## aleazk

MacLeod said:


> I'd rather read aleazk any day! :devil:


I will send you my thesis when I finish it then.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Just smoking Tabacco in my pipe thanks


----------



## Capeditiea

1-3 times per season.


----------



## Bulldog

I'm not sure how I got to this thread, but here I am.

I knew a guy who went nuts with paranoia after just two hits of ordinary pot. On the other side, I know folks who have enjoyed high-grade pot on a daily basis for decades and have not had any negative health/personal/social impacts. It depends greatly on the individual, and it's also important to use the product in a responsible manner. 

There was some discussion earlier in this thread about the cost of pot. Here in New Mexico, you can get a 2 to 3 week supply of high-grade for about $200.


----------



## chill782002

Agree with Bulldog's post. Just as a minority seem genetically predisposed to alcoholism, a minority also seem predisposed to psychiatric issues resulting from marijuana use. That said, I know people in highly paid, executive roles who've been heavy smokers for years without any apparent ill effects (apart from the effect on their lungs, but that's also true of tobacco smoking). It no longer seems to be regarded as the menace that it was in my teenage years, particularly as more and more countries seem to be in favour of legalisation.


----------



## Art Rock

Never did, never will. The same with regular smoking. I prefer a nice glass of wine (or two) or a good whisky.


----------



## chill782002

Very wise Art Rock. I personally think that the cigarettes have damaged my health far more than the pot and those are completely legal. Oh well, no-one's perfect.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I remember a friend's retort when one anti-smoker vigorously argued against cannabis/marijuana use because of needing tobacco to go with it:

'Let them eat cake...'

Made me laugh anyway.


----------



## chill782002

Good comeback! However, one doesn't have to mix with tobacco. I remember some American exchange students many years ago when I was at university who were horrified that we did so. I pointed out that they came from the Deep South where climactic conditions were more conducive to growing, as opposed to the UK where cultivation needs to take place indoors under lights due to the chilly northern climate. This also has the effect of significantly increasing the cost. In any case, I only indulge on occasion nowadays. Unlike the damn cigarettes, which are lamentably a daily necessity.


----------



## Jacck

Bulldog said:


> I'm not sure how I got to this thread, but here I am.
> 
> I knew a guy who went nuts with paranoia after just two hits of ordinary pot. On the other side, I know folks who have enjoyed high-grade pot on a daily basis for decades and have not had any negative health/personal/social impacts. It depends greatly on the individual, and it's also important to use the product in a responsible manner.
> 
> There was some discussion earlier in this thread about the cost of pot. Here in New Mexico, you can get a 2 to 3 week supply of high-grade for about $200.


that is really expensive. Many people here just plant a couple of seeds in their garden/glass house in the spring, harvest it in the september and 1 or 2 plants are enough for the whole year. You can buy some good quality seeds from the Netherlands which is a mecca. I did smoke it ocassionaly when younger, though the truth is, I do not enjoy the state of being high too much nowadays. Neither from pot, nor from alcohol. Some people also make ointments out of the plant and use it for sore joints, muscles etc. Some even believe it can cure many serious conditions and produce the Rick Simpson oil drops. 
I personally believe there are more interesting plants, many of which you can buy legally in Europe
https://shop.buzzherb.eu/buzzherb_vienna


----------



## Room2201974

"A Fact well established in the System of Agriculture is that the best Hemp and the best Tobacco grow on the same Kind of Soil. The former Article is of first Necessity to the Commerce and Marine in other Words to the Wealth and Protection of the Country." ~Thomas Jefferson


----------



## starthrower

I never understood the attraction to weed. Getting high doesn't really do anything for me but give me cotton mouth. And the cost of the stuff these days is ridiculous. I'd rather buy a bottle of chardonnay for 10 dollars. And only occasionally. Growing up in the 70s weed was everywhere and it was dirt cheap. Many kids I knew became serious potheads and some lost all ambition and flunked out of school. I decided at a young age that I wasn't going to do that.


----------



## philoctetes

Pot is more generally accepted than tobacco where I live. Consumers have high standards and prices are relatively low.

When I moved to CA, a pack of cigs was 50 cents, so was a gallon of gas, and a "lid" of Mexican was $10. Now a pack of cigs is $6, a gallon of gas is $4, and an oz of weed is $100-300 depending on source and quality. In most cases it is far better than the old Mexican stuff ever was.

Meanwhile, real estate price gains are just as ridiculous. So I guess real estate is a vice too.


----------



## atsizat

In Turkey, there is synthetic weed.

Most of the druggies stopped smoking weed after synthetic weed replaced the natural one. They started smoking synthetic weed.

Synthetic weed took the natural weed's place.


----------



## chill782002

atsizat said:


> In Turkey, there is synthetic weed.
> 
> Most of the druggies stopped smoking weed after synthetic weed replaced the natural one. They started smoking synthetic weed.
> 
> Synthetic weed took the natural weed's place.


If the synthetic weed is Turkey is anything like the "synthetic cannabinoids" here in the UK (commonly known as "Spice", "Black Mamba" or "Monkey Dust") then you can keep it. That stuff is nothing like herbal marijuana and appears to drive people temporarily insane, from my observations. I prefer to know that it has been grown rather than whipped up in some back street lab somewhere. I lost any interest I ever had in chemicals a long time ago.


----------



## atsizat

chill782002 said:


> If the synthetic weed is Turkey is anything like the "synthetic cannabinoids" here in the UK (commonly known as "Spice", "Black Mamba" or "Monkey Dust") then you can keep it. That stuff is nothing like herbal marijuana and appears to drive people temporarily insane, from my observations. I prefer to know that it has been grown rather than whipped up in some back street lab somewhere. I lost any interest I ever had in chemicals a long time ago.


Synthetic weed in Turkey is street made too. Cause it is illegal. It is fake synthetic weed. Street made.

I smoked it 4 times years ago myself. But I know people who were smoking it everyday, regularly.


----------



## chill782002

atsizat said:


> Synthetic weed in Turkey is street made too. Cause it is illegal. It is fake synthetic weed. Street made.
> 
> I smoked it 4 times years ago myself. But I know people who were smoking it everyday, regularly.


Wow, bad news. I'm staying well away from that stuff.


----------



## atsizat

chill782002 said:


> Wow, bad news. I'm staying well away from that stuff.


It had caused me to hear scary voices that dont exist. Scary voices, like they were coming out of a horror movie. And I was feeling like my organs were melting.

It gives horror. No happeniess but horror.

I didnt have any side effects of it since I smoked it 4 times only. It was 5 years ago.


----------



## Luchesi

I wouldn't be a musician today if not for the mind altering effects. But I felt myself getting psychologically dependent so I stayed away from it for decades. 

Today I merely have to think about those early experiences and I hear music more completely. I don't know how that works. It probably only works when both activities are begun at a young age. 

...But I would caution, it's a dicey path for some personalities. It's scary to think about this new world of legalization, because it will all become less taboo. For example, the edibles take an hour and a quarter to reach a maximum. How many newbies know that? They'll keep eating for an effect and they'll end up in the ER (if they're lucky) disconnected from all reality...


----------



## Strange Magic

Not a user. Tried it back in the 1960s, but had a bad reaction, and was already hooked on cigarettes--one addiction at a time. Kicked the nicotine habit almost 40 years ago, and, except for a beer once or twice a year, am teetotal. Possibility of lung damage and mental/emotional coping difficulties (as well as expense, and danger of impaired driving and other performance degradation--pilots, surgeons) make me at most a reluctant supporter of legalization. In an ideal world, I'd like to see it legal but coupled with a strong Public Health message that smoking dope is a Bad Idea. The current barrage of ads for online sports betting is going to explode the population of gambling addicts, bankruptcies, broken families, suicides. _Homo sapiens_: Thinking Man. You bet.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Not a user. Tried it back in the 1960s, but had a bad reaction, and was already hooked on cigarettes--one addiction at a time. Kicked the nicotine habit almost 40 years ago, and, except for a beer once or twice a year, am teetotal. Possibility of lung damage and mental/emotional coping difficulties (as well as expense, and danger of impaired driving and other performance degradation--pilots, surgeons) make me at most a reluctant supporter of legalization. In an ideal world, I'd like to see it legal but coupled with a strong Public Health message that smoking dope is a Bad Idea. The current barrage of ads for online sports betting is going to explode the population of gambling addicts, bankruptcies, broken families, suicides. _Homo sapiens_: Thinking Man. You bet.


Gambling woes, insidious lung damage, recurring mental derailments... very serious, but they say, there are some things you can only learn in a storm ..of personal experience.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

I've smoked probably around 30-50 times in my life. At first it was new and interesting, but I don't find it very enjoyable or stimulating anymore, and I tend to become rather paranoid while high. That being said, from time to time, and in extremely small doses, it can still be a blast.


----------



## Luchesi

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I've smoked probably around 30-50 times in my life. At first it was new and interesting, but I don't find it very enjoyable or stimulating anymore, and I tend to become rather paranoid while high. That being said, from time to time, and in extremely small doses, it can still be a blast.


They're traced out why addictive substances and additive behaviors require more and more to offer up the same good feelings.

"Biochemically modified isoforms of ΔFosB (molecular mass 35-37 kDa) accumulate within the same brain regions after repeated drug exposure, whereas all other Fos family members show tolerance (that is, reduced induction compared with initial drug exposures). Such accumulation of ΔFosB has been observed for cocaine, morphine, amphetamine, alcohol, nicotine, and phencyclidine (11, 14-18). There is some evidence that this induction is selective for the dynorphin/substance P-containing subset of medium spiny neurons located in these brain regions (15, 17), although more work is needed to establish this with certainty. The 35- to 37-kDa isoforms of ΔFosB dimerize predominantly with JunD to form an active and long-lasting AP-1 complex within these brain regions (19, 20). These ΔFosB isoforms accumulate with chronic drug exposure because of their extraordinarily long half-lives (21), and therefore persist in the neurons for at least several weeks after cessation of drug administration. It is interesting to note that these ΔFosB isoforms are highly stable products of an immediate early gene (fosB). The stability of the ΔFosB isoforms provides a novel molecular mechanism by which drug-induced changes in gene expression can persist despite relatively long periods of drug withdrawal.
Although the nucleus accumbens plays a critical role in the rewarding effects of drugs of abuse, it is believed to function normally by regulating responses to natural reinforcers, such as food, drink, sex, and social interactions (12, 13). As a result, there is considerable interest in a possible role of this brain region in other compulsive behaviors (e.g., pathological overeating, gambling, exercise, etc.). For this reason, we examined whether ΔFosB is regulated in an animal model of compulsive running. Indeed, the stable 35- to 37-kDa isoforms of ΔFosB are induced selectively within the nucleus accumbens in rats that show compulsive running behavior."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC58680/


----------



## atsizat

Luchesi said:


> They're traced out why addictive substances and additive behaviors require more and more to offer up the same good feelings.
> 
> "Biochemically modified isoforms of ΔFosB (molecular mass 35-37 kDa) accumulate within the same brain regions after repeated drug exposure, whereas all other Fos family members show tolerance (that is, reduced induction compared with initial drug exposures). Such accumulation of ΔFosB has been observed for cocaine, morphine, amphetamine, alcohol, nicotine, and phencyclidine (11, 14-18). There is some evidence that this induction is selective for the dynorphin/substance P-containing subset of medium spiny neurons located in these brain regions (15, 17), although more work is needed to establish this with certainty. The 35- to 37-kDa isoforms of ΔFosB dimerize predominantly with JunD to form an active and long-lasting AP-1 complex within these brain regions (19, 20). These ΔFosB isoforms accumulate with chronic drug exposure because of their extraordinarily long half-lives (21), and therefore persist in the neurons for at least several weeks after cessation of drug administration. It is interesting to note that these ΔFosB isoforms are highly stable products of an immediate early gene (fosB). The stability of the ΔFosB isoforms provides a novel molecular mechanism by which drug-induced changes in gene expression can persist despite relatively long periods of drug withdrawal.
> Although the nucleus accumbens plays a critical role in the rewarding effects of drugs of abuse, it is believed to function normally by regulating responses to natural reinforcers, such as food, drink, sex, and social interactions (12, 13). As a result, there is considerable interest in a possible role of this brain region in other compulsive behaviors (e.g., pathological overeating, gambling, exercise, etc.). For this reason, we examined whether ΔFosB is regulated in an animal model of compulsive running. Indeed, the stable 35- to 37-kDa isoforms of ΔFosB are induced selectively within the nucleus accumbens in rats that show compulsive running behavior."
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC58680/


Synthetic weed is not physically addictive, unlike Heroin, but it is too harmful to the body.


----------



## Jacck

Release the Kratom: Inside America's Hottest New Drug Culture
https://www.wired.com/story/release-the-kratom-inside-drug-culture/


----------



## Merl

Back in the early 90s I smoked weed daily. I gave it up as it destroyed my self-motivation and self-esteem. It was a bad drug for me but others feel differently and if it works for them who am I to say that's bad? 5 years after I gave up, I was finishing Uni and becoming a teacher. However, I don't view it as an evil drug but like any drug (including the more socially acceptable alcohol) taken in excess it affects your life and those around you. I've never returned to it.


----------



## atsizat

Merl said:


> Back in the early 90s I smoked weed daily. I gave it up as it destroyed my self-motivation and self-esteem. It was a bad drug for me but others feel differently and if it works for them who am I to say that's bad? 5 years after I gave up, I was finishing Uni and becoming a teacher. However, I don't view it as an evil drug but like any drug (including the more socially acceptable alcohol) taken in excess it affects your life and those around you. I've never returned to it.


Weed is no drug for Junkies of Turkey.

Synthetic Weed and Ecstasy Pills are most common illegal drugs here.

Turkish weed is pretty bad quality. It doesnt make one feel much. It is not something junkies use in Turkey. No.


----------



## Luchesi

Merl said:


> Back in the early 90s I smoked weed daily. I gave it up as it destroyed my self-motivation and self-esteem. It was a bad drug for me but others feel differently and if it works for them who am I to say that's bad? 5 years after I gave up, I was finishing Uni and becoming a teacher. However, I don't view it as an evil drug but like any drug (including the more socially acceptable alcohol) taken in excess it affects your life and those around you. I've never returned to it.


Musicians I've met all agree that every musician should get the experience at least once. You can't really play very well, but the whole process becomes reduced into steps that you never realized before. That experience will stay with you a long time, and you can build upon it. It's so close to your body.


----------



## philoctetes

I'd rather have a regular stoner operate on me than a regular drinker any day, if I had to choose. Alcohol is truly the "gateway" drug and as a health hazard it claims far more victims than pot. 

More recent discoveries of CBD benefits are still being muzzled by big pharma. I recently injured my back and used topical CBD ointment with surprising results.

Boutique products carried by the best CA dispensaries are now broken down into a complete chemical analysis. The idea is that these products will continue to diversify as varietals as people learn what works for them and what doesn't. No bad intentions.

But hey go ahead, stop people from having these benefits, criminalize them instead, while more destructive "medicines" remain legally at large and your favorite crisis topic is population control... yet someone is now gonna tell me that my post doesn't make sense...


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^No, you will only be informed when a post does make sense. Meanwhile, have another hit on the bong.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^No, you will only be informed when a post does make sense. Meanwhile, have another hit on the bong.


Hah! Monsieu _Magique étrange_, you really are a cad! Now, if you don't mind, please pass that bong my way, if you'd just stop bogarting that rather nice _filet de boeuf en croüt_e...


----------



## philoctetes

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^No, you will only be informed when a post does make sense. Meanwhile, have another hit on the bong.


Calm down Tulsi, who said you were the "someone"?


----------



## Luchesi

THC may interfere with the brain’s anti-inflammatory mechanisms, resulting in damage to nerve cells and blood vessels. Is this the reason, Berenson wonders, for the rising incidence of schizophrenia in the developed world, where cannabis use has also increased? In the northern parts of Finland, incidence of the disease has nearly doubled since 1993. In Denmark, cases have risen twenty-five per cent since 2000. In the United States, hospital emergency rooms have seen a fifty-per-cent increase in schizophrenia admissions since 2006. If you include cases where schizophrenia was a secondary diagnosis, annual admissions in the past decade have increased from 1.26 million to 2.1 million.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I don't use pot, but my home state has legalized it. Apparently people are lining up for it.


----------



## Luchesi

SixFootScowl said:


> I don't use pot, but my home state has legalized it. Apparently people are lining up for it.


Watch for motorists who are driving very slowly. They're just trying to get home after an unexpected high resulting in serial disassociations.
If this sounds scary to be on the roads. It is.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Never. I don't take anything containing alcohol or caffeine either. Milk is the only drink I regularly consume, with "Brahms":


----------



## Jacck

hammeredklavier said:


> Never. I don't take anything containing alcohol or caffeine either. Milk is the only drink I regularly consume, with "Brahms":


I hope "Brahms" is not your dog
https://apnews.com/44f2c3e2904248adb6dcedca4a99b63b


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jacck said:


> I hope "Brahms" is not your dog
> https://apnews.com/44f2c3e2904248adb6dcedca4a99b63b


Well I do own a cat named _Tristan_


----------



## TMHeimer

I've never smoked pot. Interestingly, I attended ghetto Jr. High & High Schools in NY. Think I will smoke a joint this summer, since it is legal throughout Canada. I still can't figure how a state can make it legal while it is still illegal Federally in the U.S. So if you're in Colorado and a state or local cop sees you light up you're OK, but not if an FBI agent sees you?


----------



## mrdoc

If you have at least half a brain you will leave it alone.

NB. this was not aimed at you TMHeimer,


----------



## Luchesi

mrdoc said:


> If you have at least half a brain you will leave it alone.
> 
> NB. this was not aimed at you TMHeimer,


It gives you a new outlook. It only lasts a few days and after that it's difficult to remember the outlook. So the question brought up is -- is that outlook our natural outlook which was always there underneath the formal thinking?


----------



## mrdoc

Luchesi said:


> It gives you a new outlook. It only lasts a few days and after that it's difficult to remember the outlook. So the question brought up is -- is that outlook our natural outlook which was always there underneath the formal thinking?


I would like to know what this new outlook is! any pot smokers like to enlighten?


----------



## philoctetes

Come to CA and paddle a river raft. When the guides whisper "safety talk" and disappear for 10 minutes, check their eyes when they return ha...


----------



## Luchesi

mrdoc said:


> I would like to know what this new outlook is! any pot smokers like to enlighten?


It's difficult to describe to someone who has never had an inkling of it. Your thinking becomes so uninhibited. But it's difficult to conceptualize that with no prior experience or reference points.

The closest thing I can compare it to is perhaps when you were a child you had other kids hold your chest until you passed out and then you fell to the ground, but a few seconds later you're awake again -- and your brain had constructed this whole story, a totally surreal story with lots of colors, so that the passage of time was difficult to compare to only that few seconds. It happens with a rapid change in brain chemistry.


----------



## mrdoc

Luchesi said:


> It's difficult to describe to someone who has never had an inkling of it. Your thinking becomes so uninhibited. But it's difficult to conceptualize that with no prior experience or reference points.
> 
> The closest thing I can compare it to is perhaps when you were a child you had other kids hold your chest until you passed out and then you fell to the ground, but a few seconds later you're awake again -- and your brain had constructed this whole story, a totally surreal story with lots of colors, so that the passage of time was difficult to compare to only that few seconds. It happens with a rapid change in brain chemistry.


I never had that kind of childhood, it reminds me of the Grace Millane murder trial where we are told that during the sex act certain women liked to be strangled but released just before death I think you would have to be very foolish to even think of taking such a risk, just imagine making Marijuana legal and letting these people drive a vehicle


----------



## Bulldog

mrdoc said:


> I never had that kind of childhood, it reminds me of the Grace Millane murder trial where we are told that during the sex act certain women liked to be strangled but released just before death I think you would have to be very foolish to even think of taking such a risk, just imagine making Marijuana legal and letting these people drive a vehicle


Alcohol is legal, but people are arrested for driving in an impaired state - the same would apply to marijuana.


----------



## Luchesi

Bulldog said:


> Alcohol is legal, but people are arrested for driving in an impaired state - the same would apply to marijuana.


They say that alcohol dulls the mind so that you think you'll be able to drive. And you don't feel that you're a danger when you get behind the wheel and you're just trying to get home. "It's not far. I'm fine."

Marijuana is a polar opposite of that. But there is a big danger with edibles.


----------



## mrdoc

Bulldog said:


> Alcohol is legal, but people are arrested for driving in an impaired state - the same would apply to marijuana.


Exactly, then why on earth would you want to add to the problem?


----------



## Bulldog

mrdoc said:


> Exactly, then why on earth would you want to add to the problem?


The problem is in your mind.


----------



## philoctetes

Those who had perfect childhoods probably have no need for anything more. No marijuana, no booze, no adulthood. The best is already over. Losers like myself, however, never give up trying to reach that state of perfection after it's already too late...


----------



## mrdoc

Bulldog said:


> The problem is in your mind.


My mind really,would you care to elaborate.


----------



## Room2201974

The legislature here is drunk with power, so every day I drive in an impaired State. 

"Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue." ~ Steve McCroskey


----------



## Jacck

philoctetes said:


> Those who had perfect childhoods probably have no need for anything more. No marijuana, no booze, no adulthood. The best is already over. Losers like myself, however, never give up trying to reach that state of perfection after it's already too late...


there is a psychoterapeutic technique called the "inner child" that tries to heal similar things. So if you cannot afford psychoterapy, it might be good to buy some book about it or at least learn about it on the internet


----------



## Strange Magic

No perfect childhood here, but music, art, books, nature, science helped see me through, along with a pack-a-day cigarette habit, The habit is long gone but the other supports are still there and still work.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> No perfect childhood here, but music, art, books, nature, science helped see me through, along with a pack-a-day cigarette habit, The habit is long gone but the other supports are still there and still work.


Science and the arts, the good news is you can have both with your weed (but be careful with the science because depressing subjects can become more depressing in an altered state because your mind races).

It's interesting that people try to figure out what a drugged state feels like so that they can give their opinion. But they can only make naive or doltish guesses.

I'm not recommending altered states. Young people will binge drink the poison of alcohol and die because they need to belong socially as a primate. So you should be at least in your mid 20s before you research the subject. After all, you need some foundation to fall back on, ..and reality is already somewhat overwhelming for young brains.


----------



## mrdoc

It is possible to enjoy life without mind destroying substances no matter what childhood you had, it is always a matter of choice, Up to you.


----------



## Luchesi

mrdoc said:


> It is possible to enjoy life without mind destroying substances no matter what childhood you had, it is always a matter of choice, Up to you.


Mind destroying. I haven't heard that, but alcohol does change your brain. Brain 'shrinkage'. When you go to the doctor for a check up the nurse will ask you not how much alcohol you drink but how many days a week do you drink alcohol? This seems to be because your liver requires a lot of hours to rid your body of the poison, and so if you drink every day your liver can't keep up and subtle damage occurs over the weeks and months. 

As with any drug there is a psychological component. Instead of accomplishing things in life and feeling good about those accomplishments and the recurring reinforcements - people will take drugs to get the same feelings and brain chemical rewards without all the work and effort. Of course the opposite is true too. If you never imbibe you'll never know what the herb might do for your life.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

A ganga high is fine for playing music . However , should you be creating songs while high you will need
to be stoned when performing them . A travelling reggae band can have an EMERGENCY situation , and
then there is one remedy .

Unlike an easily well-supplied alcoholic cowboy band , a band of happy potheads will not become stupid and falling over 
and the Lion may roar .


----------



## SixFootScowl

I do not use pot and I do not recommend its use. I suppose if I had to choose to sit in a room full of people who are high, better stoners than alcoholics as the stoners will be relatively harmless, but the drunks will want to get into a fight. On the road a stoner is probably safer than a drunk. My guesses, please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Bulldog

SixFootScowl said:


> I do not use pot and I do not recommend its use. I suppose if I had to choose to sit in a room full of people who are high, better stoners than alcoholics as the stoners will be relatively harmless, but the drunks will want to get into a fight. On the road a stoner is probably safer than a drunk. My guesses, please correct me if I am wrong.


No, you are not wrong. Unfortunately, there have been quite a few ignorant comments made on this thread by folks.

At the same time, I have seen and known of individuals who can't handle high-grade pot. They get all paranoid, lose their sense of emotional balance and even get physically ill. I suppose it has something to do with their particular chemistry, and they would be major fools to continue using the product.

Here in New Mexico, stores exist to sell pot given that the recipient has a valid medical prescription. Individuals are also allowed to grow their own product for personal use with a restriction on the number of plants. Unfortunately, product price is much higher than on the illegal market. Of course, the higher price accommodates the tax taken off the top, and most legal sellers have connections to folks with political power.


----------



## mrdoc

The drug v Alcohol road accidents in NZ are showing a trend that does not support alcohol is worse we have low alcohol levels at which you can drive I cant quote the figure off hand but for me it is 1 small bottle of beer or 1 small glass of wine so I do not drive after drinking, it is easy for the police to test for alcohol when you are stopped but for drugs you need to be taken to the police station and tested by the doctor.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/14/new-zealand-drug-driving-deaths-surpass-drink-driving-toll-for-first-time
Just do not drive when stoned or slightly pissed.


----------



## philoctetes

I can't think of a better time than right now for everybody in quarantine to get daily doot-to-door deliveries of pot-laced edibles and CBD products... there's probably enough weed in CA to keep the US stoned for a month...


----------



## millionrainbows

I used to smoke it, I do not now, but I wish it was legal so it would have a sedating effect on the populace, bring in taxes, create business...


----------



## TMHeimer

I've never smoked pot and will be 66 shortly, AND grew up a mile from NYC....Have tried the medicinal pills, but not a fan. Plan to smoke my first joint maybe this summer, since it is legal in Canada. Don't wanna die without seeing what all the fuss is about from the 70s.....


----------



## Bulldog

TMHeimer said:


> I've never smoked pot and will be 66 shortly, AND grew up a mile from NYC....Have tried the medicinal pills, but not a fan. Plan to smoke my first joint maybe this summer, since it is legal in Canada. Don't wanna die without seeing what all the fuss is about from the 70s.....


There's a lot of variety of quality, so make sure you have top-rate pot. Given that you haven't indulged before, it's best you are not alone.


----------



## mrdoc

TMHeimer said:


> I've never smoked pot and will be 66 shortly, AND grew up a mile from NYC....Have tried the medicinal pills, but not a fan. Plan to smoke my first joint maybe this summer, since it is legal in Canada. Don't wanna die without seeing what all the fuss is about from the 70s.....


When I was in the UK playing the jazz clubs late 50s - early 60s it was all around I knew one musician that I suspected of using it but he called it herbal tobacco. I was never interested and neither were any of the other musicians that I knew, but the patrons of the clubs were a different breed.


----------



## science

I'd love to try pot but I've never had the chance. I hope it's fully legalized and better research into its effects on health is allowed to be done. Fortunately, that appears to be just a matter of time.


----------



## Merl

Bulldog said:


> There's a lot of variety of quality, so make sure you have top-rate pot. Given that you haven't indulged before, it's best you are not alone.


This is a classic 'white-out' in the making. I foresee an older individual, flat out on the floor, sweating profusely. Lol


----------



## mrdoc

science said:


> I'd love to try pot but I've never had the chance. I hope it's fully legalized a, nd better research into its effects on health is allowed to be done. Fortunately, that appears to be just a matter of time.


For goodness sake man get a hold of your self leave it alone, it leads to all sorts of problems leave it to the idiots, medicinal under proper control is another thing altogether. Russian Roulette would be better odds.


----------



## Bulldog

mrdoc said:


> For goodness sake man get a hold of your self leave it alone, it leads to all sorts of problems leave it to the idiots, medicinal under proper control is another thing altogether. Russian Roulette would be better odds.


The main problem would be weight gain. :lol:


----------



## chill782002

Bulldog said:


> The main problem would be weight gain. :lol:


Agreed. I know highly paid professionals who have smoked on a regular basis for decades without any ill effects (apart from the lung damage, of course, but the same is true of smoking tobacco). Some people have a bad reaction to it, but the same is true of alcohol.


----------



## Sad Al

Which poet? Can I smoke poetry?


----------



## millionrainbows

chill782002 said:


> Agreed. I know highly paid professionals who have smoked on a regular basis for decades without any ill effects (apart from the lung damage, of course, but the same is true of smoking tobacco). Some people have a bad reaction to it, but the same is true of alcohol.


My dentist and oral surgeon both smoke pot, or eat pot-gummies. They both are pretty well-off, and both have private planes and pilots' licenses.


----------



## Strange Magic

Assuming one has a perfectly good mind that one is comfortable exploring and using, I don't know why some people seem so willing, if not eager, to mess with it chemically. It's the only mind you'll have; they don't issue replacements (but they often can and do reprogram, if you're not careful).


----------



## SixFootScowl

millionrainbows said:


> My dentist and oral surgeon both smoke pot, or eat pot-gummies. They both are pretty well-off, and *both have private planes and pilots' licenses*.


So they will really be flying high!


----------



## millionrainbows

I think that you should be allowed to smoke pot and get really wasted, as long as you're not driving, and as long as you have a job which does not involve putting anyone at risk, such as doctors, dentists, pilots, etc., and not while you are on that job. If you're a shoe salesman, it's cool; likewise, fast-food jobs, janitors, insurance salesmen, artists, photographers, musicians...but not electricians. *ZAP!*


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Assuming one has a perfectly good mind that one is comfortable exploring and using, I don't know why some people seem so willing, if not eager, to mess with it chemically. It's the only mind you'll have; they don't issue replacements (but they often can and do reprogram, if you're not careful).


It changes your thinking almost immediately. It works against natural inhibitions (survival mechanisms) to open your hearing (attentiveness) and clear the blurring around some unusual but constructive thoughts (which might have been in the background, inhibited).

I recommend trying a little. Very little the first few times. You might not notice anything and you might say it's not working - what's the big deal? So it's best to be with friends, because they can talk with you if/when you're going up, or you're not ..because you didn't get enough.. The worst thing for your composure at that point would be to try a lot more. Friends can talk to you..

And about those surprising and constructive thoughts.. You'll remember you had them, but you won't remember them. Just snippets!
 Short term memory/long term memory, inhibiting chemical wash, it's the brain without drugs.


----------



## Luchesi

millionrainbows said:


> I think that you should be allowed to smoke pot and get really wasted, as long as you're not driving, and as long as you have a job which does not involve putting anyone at risk, such as doctors, dentists, pilots, etc., and not while you are on that job. If you're a shoe salesman, it's cool; likewise, fast-food jobs, janitors, insurance salesmen, artists, photographers, musicians...but not electricians. *ZAP!*


Unlike the experience of being falling-down drunk, I'll continue to CARE very much about consequences. This is very different than too much alcohol - and difficult to put into words for people unless you've been both.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> It changes your thinking almost immediately. It works against natural inhibitions (survival mechanisms) to open your hearing (attentiveness) and clear the blurring around some unusual but constructive thoughts (which might have been in the background, inhibited).
> 
> I recommend trying a little. Very little the first few times. You might not notice anything and you might say it's not working - what's the big deal? So it's best to be with friends, because they can talk with you if/when you're going up, or you're not ..because you didn't get enough.. The worst thing for your composure at that point would be to try a lot more. Friends can talk to you..
> 
> And about those surprising and constructive thoughts.. You'll remember you had them, but you won't remember them. Just snippets!
> Short term memory/long term memory, inhibiting chemical wash, it's the brain without drugs.


I appreciated this informative post.

Of course I have tried pot--it was difficult to avoid doing so in the 1960s. But I always found that I preferred the functioning of my mind _sans_ reefer to the more scattershot results of its use. And so my drug of choice has been music exclusively (once I freed my self from the tyranny of cigarettes). Another contra-indicator to endorsing pot's extensive use was the overall impression made over the decades by its most vociferous boosters, and by the uncertainty raised as to the focus of those using the material, especially if one were depending upon their performance. Your own implication of use also has helped to clear up the mystery and origin of a certain "elliptical" quality to many of your posts over the years. Perhaps had I also been thus influenced, their themes might have been more easily discernible. But thanks for posting what you believe are the pluses of using weed, and how best to work oneself into its best use: "I never do more than I really need": Foreigner: _Double Vision._

So I am content with the functioning of my mind as it is. I have no serious objections to the use and legalization of pot; I only am somewhat puzzled and saddened by society's providing yet another way for large numbers of people to find themselves in difficulties--the explosive introduction of legalized Internet sports betting seems designed to addict many newcomers not already in the thrall of lotteries and casinos. But that's a whole 'nother subject.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I think that you should be allowed to smoke pot and get really wasted, as long as you're not driving, and as long as you have a job which does not involve putting anyone at risk, such as doctors, dentists, pilots, etc., and not while you are on that job. If you're a shoe salesman, it's cool; likewise, fast-food jobs, janitors, insurance salesmen, artists, photographers, musicians...but not electricians. *ZAP!*


I partially agree. I think it should be legalized, or at least decriminalized. We don't need people imprisoned for partaking of a substance that, from all the evidence I've seen, is at most no worse than alcohol. I don't use either, but I'm not for making them illegal. But what position private enterprises take is a different matter.

I would leave hiring and firing decisions to employers. They should be allowed to have random drug screenings and fire someone who tests positive, if they so choose. It can be a liability to them, so it should be up to them whether that kind of risk is something they are willing to take on.


----------



## mrdoc

For goodness sake we already have a problem with alcohol why add another substance? Once the genie is out of the bottle.., and why stop there make all drugs legal and then we could add shoplifting, assault, robbery etc etc. absolute lunacy IMO.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Babylon Confuction 

And the respect is don't buy it , don't sell it , grow it and share .


----------



## Guest

mrdoc said:


> For goodness sake we already have a problem with alcohol why add another substance? Once the genie is out of the bottle.., and why stop there make all drugs legal and then we could add shoplifting, assault, robbery etc etc. absolute lunacy IMO.


The slippery slope fallacy isn't really applicable here.

Look, shoplifting, assault, robbery, etc. - the difference between those offenses and marijuana use is that those offenses absolutely, every time impact another person, by definition. You can't shoplift against yourself. You can't rob yourself. Marijuana, like alcohol, can possibly used in a way that does no harm to another person when used responsibly.

What are we accomplishing by making marijuana illegal? Sure, some people may overuse it and that can be detrimental - just like alcohol, tobacco, or even food, if you want to take it out far enough. But really, this gets more into controlling behavior as opposed to preventing harm to others. And I just don't think that is what the government needs to be doing. I don't want to see marijuana usage go up, but I'm not sure that legalizing it is going to cause an epidemic of pot usage, nor do I think that throwing people in jail for using it is doing any good at all.

I think that letting other pressures come to bear to restrict it is much better - if companies won't employ you if you test positive for pot usage, I think that is a better tool than going to prison.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

The Babylon Confuction is a vortex . Inescapable ?

Do I want to smoke pot right now ? no
If a friend came over with a bud and wanted to
play music ? sure


----------



## mrdoc

DrMike said:


> The slippery slope fallacy isn't really applicable here.
> 
> Look, shoplifting, assault, robbery, etc. - the difference between those offenses and marijuana use is that those offenses absolutely, every time impact another person, by definition. You can't shoplift against yourself. You can't rob yourself. Marijuana, like alcohol, can possibly used in a way that does no harm to another person when used responsibly.


So driving when drugged will not harm others or operating machinery etc, making it legal will only send the message that it is OK to get smashed.


----------



## Guest

mrdoc said:


> So driving when drugged will not harm others or operating machinery etc, making it legal will only send the message that it is OK to get smashed.


Alcohol is legal. Do you really think people believe that means it is okay to drive drunk? Driving while intoxicated is still illegal. Companies can restrict smoking and drinking on company property. Honestly, we have figured all this stuff out already with alcohol.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> I appreciated this informative post.
> 
> Of course I have tried pot--it was difficult to avoid doing so in the 1960s. But I always found that I preferred the functioning of my mind _sans_ reefer to the more scattershot results of its use. And so my drug of choice has been music exclusively (once I freed my self from the tyranny of cigarettes). Another contra-indicator to endorsing pot's extensive use was the overall impression made over the decades by its most vociferous boosters, and by the uncertainty raised as to the focus of those using the material, especially if one were depending upon their performance. Your own implication of use also has helped to clear up the mystery and origin of a certain "elliptical" quality to many of your posts over the years. Perhaps had I also been thus influenced, their themes might have been more easily discernible. But thanks for posting what you believe are the pluses of using weed, and how best to work oneself into its best use: "I never do more than I really need": Foreigner: _Double Vision._
> 
> So I am content with the functioning of my mind as it is. I have no serious objections to the use and legalization of pot; I only am somewhat puzzled and saddened by society's providing yet another way for large numbers of people to find themselves in difficulties--the explosive introduction of legalized Internet sports betting seems designed to addict many newcomers not already in the thrall of lotteries and casinos. But that's a whole 'nother subject.


Thanks, we can talk about it, it's a big subject (outlooks and artistic ambiguity and posting). What I've learned is you become very narrowly focussed. You fixate on some 'insight' or phrase in a social group. It's difficult to feel normal, and so you get compulsive, overkeen about bits of the animal condition (food, sex, the arts). Musicians like it because they effortlessly become ultra-focussed on playing and listening. The greatest players don't seem to need it as an aid. Glenn Gould was high on playing contrapuntal complexities. He 'heard' counterpoint everywhere in the literature, as if he was continuously somewhat tipsy. More of the good chemicals than most of us?, due to all the concentration (and few other outlets) in his formative years?


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> Thanks, we can talk about it, it's a big subject (outlooks and artistic ambiguity and posting). What I've learned is you become very narrowly focussed. You fixate on some 'insight' or phrase in a social group. It's difficult to feel normal, and so you get compulsive, overkeen about bits of the animal condition (food, sex, the arts). Musicians like it because they effortlessly become ultra-focussed on playing and listening. The greatest players don't seem to need it as an aid. Glenn Gould was high on playing contrapuntal complexities. He 'heard' counterpoint everywhere in the literature, as if he was continuously somewhat tipsy. More of the good chemicals than most of us?, due to all the concentration (and few other outlets) in his formative years?


I would be OK with all that narrow hyperfocus and difficulty feeling normal (in others) if there was a surefire obvious physical sign at a distance that someone was buzzed. That way I could make sure I could avoid them if I had serious business to conduct or even if I just preferred to be among other unbuzzed people and interacting with folks on a footing of mutual "authenticity", if that's a useful phrase.

The use of drugs by athletes might be thought about as a parallel situation, and the response to that use.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> I would be OK with all that narrow hyperfocus and difficulty feeling normal (in others) if there was a surefire obvious physical sign at a distance that someone was buzzed. That way I could make sure I could avoid them if I had serious business to conduct or even if I just preferred to be among other unbuzzed people and interacting with folks on a footing of mutual "authenticity", if that's a useful phrase.
> 
> The use of drugs by athletes might be thought about as a parallel situation, and the response to that use.


The athlete cheating analogy misses the mark because you can't play better. You only think you play better! You're very much in your own world of many complex layers of memories and reactions and fixations.
Some folks say they drive more safely with a little bit. You don't zone out! or get blasé about commandeering your dangerous 2 ton box! You're very aware and looking at everything in a new way (unlike with alcohol). If you're highly resistant and you take a little bit this might be true?, but it's a very dangerous experiment (a lot of variables).

I've cautioned before about edibles. A full hour and a half is required for it to build up in the brain (from the stomach to the bloodstream to the brain centers). After a half hour if you don't feel much DON'T take more! Wait the 90 minutes. Who's actually going to listen to this?? You could get stuck out there driving. Pull over and listen to music for a few hours. Its annoying but It's your mistake..


" …if I just preferred to be among other unbuzzed people and interacting with folks on a footing of mutual "authenticity", if that's a useful phrase."

Yes it is, being around stoned people is annoying, because they don't seem to make any sense, they laugh, their thoughts are bouncing with every "far out" thought. I've wondered whether this is a way to study how are brains evolved due to trial and error natural selection. We go back to a time when every little changing nuance around us alerted us (survival advantage). What do you think of that? LOL


----------



## Room2201974

Strange Magic said:


> I would be OK with all that narrow hyperfocus and difficulty feeling normal (in others) if there was a surefire obvious physical sign at a distance that someone was buzzed. That way I could make sure I could avoid them if I had serious business to conduct or even if I just preferred to be among other unbuzzed people and interacting with folks on a footing of mutual "authenticity", if that's a useful phrase.
> 
> The use of drugs by athletes might be thought about as a parallel situation, and the response to that use.


Balin, Kantner, Cassidy, Dryden, Kaukonen, and Slick are very disappointed! Oh well, what do those dirty hippies know anyway?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Yes it is, being around stoned people is annoying, because they don't seem to make any sense, they laugh, their thoughts are bouncing with every "far out" thought. I've wondered whether this is a way to study how are brains evolved due to trial and error natural selection. We go back to a time when every little changing nuance around us alerted us (survival advantage). What do you think of that? LOL


As a person who has never used alcohol, I can tell you that being around people who are drinking is also annoying. Over a short period of time, the conversation gets incredibly boring as it - at least every time I have experienced it - ultimately just turns to discussing alcohol. Have you tried this beer? This one is more hoppy. I'd love to do a wine tour! What do you prefer, reds or whites? Ooh, the bouquet on this one is wonderful!

I have been invited along many times (lots of times so I can be the designated driver) and told that I can still have fun - not really. And the conversation only seems to get more interesting if you are equally inebriated. Because honestly, I don't really think I'm having a meaningful conversation with someone whose eyes are sagging and kind of glossed over.


----------



## mrdoc

DrMike said:


> Alcohol is legal. Do you really think people believe that means it is okay to drive drunk? Driving while intoxicated is still illegal. Companies can restrict smoking and drinking on company property. Honestly, we have figured all this stuff out already with alcohol.


Yes some idiotic people think it is OK to drive when drunk and the same applies to drugged people, now I have no problems with these idiots killing themselves but not when they take innocent people with them. As for keeping pot illegal the majority of people including Doctors that I know are against it becoming legal, in my country NZ there will be a referendum on this very subject (legalise or not). We have already recorded (for the first time) more road accidents caused by drugged drivers. Making it legal is a bad move and sends the wrong message. I do not intend to get into an on line argument.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/14/new-zealand-drug-driving-deaths-surpass-drink-driving-toll-for-first-time


----------



## Luchesi

Room2201974 said:


> Balin, Kantner, Cassidy, Dryden, Kaukonen, and Slick are very disappointed! Oh well, what do those dirty hippies know anyway?


Rock and pop can be explored and even played while inebriated. There are many nuances, but it's simple and straightforward compared to CM.


----------



## philoctetes

I love this legend

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dock_Ellis

not a bad song either


----------



## philoctetes

True story... at 17, at the bowling alley one night with an older friend, he was sharing his beer with me and I only needed about half a can to get loose, and I rolled about 17 strikes in a row... across 2 games, only to choke in the 10th frame of the second game and score a *mere* 279...

This of course, is not an advocacy for alcohol,or other drugs, but what many people understand nowadays, more than my generation, is that very small quantities have benefits...


----------



## Flamme

Last year in one of the drawers, I discovered a Pot lollypop, which I hide 4 special occasion.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I tried pot some times long ago and got sick. I don't like the smell! I realized it's not for me after a Grateful Dead concert in 1995. I smoke ordinary tobacco all the time...


----------



## EdwardBast

geralmar posted this in the silly jokes thread. It belongs here.


----------



## Flamme

A typical hipster...


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> geralmar posted this in the silly jokes thread. It belongs here.
> 
> View attachment 134265


I think it's regrettable that some seasoned musicians haven't explored the 'meanings' and storied sequences within important music - with the help of THC.


----------



## Flamme

They should be STONED 4 dat...


----------



## SixFootScowl

I think this belongs in this thread. Even though Bob says it is not about getting high, I recall reading that everyone in the band was stoned when they recorded it.


----------



## Kopachris

I've partaken daily for the last three years or so. I use it to keep calm and manage anxiety throughout the day, especially now that I'm stuck at home. I don't get _high_ often anymore, though. My tolerance is such that it takes a lot of weed to get me actually high. When I do get high, the enjoyment of music and most other activities is heightened.


----------



## millionrainbows

What do you think of pot? How often do you smoke?

Please state your name.

Please state your FIRST name.

What is your address?

Have you ever been arrested? What for?

Are you a member of any political or social action groups?

Who did you vote for in the last presidential election?


----------



## millionrainbows

philoctetes said:


> I love this legend
> 
> not a bad song either


----------



## starthrower

You ought to try some, Million. It might help you to mellow out a bit. But I wish somebody would bring some good weed to the White House and get the prez to smoke some. It couldn't hurt!


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> You ought to try some, Million. It might help you to mellow out a bit. But I wish somebody would bring some good weed to the White House and get the prez to smoke some. It couldn't hurt!


Thanks for mentioning me in the same breath as Donald Trump. Thank your God that Frank Zappa didn't "mellow out." You sure seem full of contradictions, star thrower.


----------



## millionrainbows

It's much easier for me to "mellow out" now that I'm not being constantly hounded and tormented. Whoever called the dogs off, thank you.


----------



## starthrower

You sure seem to take everything literally. As I said smoking a blunt may help you to mellow out a bit.


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> Who did you vote for in the last presidential election?


I remember that I voted for the only candidate who openly admits to smoking pot.


----------



## SixFootScowl

*Please state your FIRST name:* They call me Smokey.

*What is your address?:* Infinity, man, it's awesome!

*Have you ever been arrested? What for?* I don't remember.

*Are you a member of any political or social action groups?* NORML
*
Who did you vote for in the last presidential election?* Zolton Ferency! Write in candidate. What an awesome name!

:lol: just kidding. But I did vote for Zolton in my first election. I didn't know who many of the candidates were back in the 1970s and that was a cool name so I pulled the lever. :lol:


----------



## Guest

Never have, never will.


----------



## aleazk

Ugh, my father used to smoke it all the time, inundating the house with that stench. I developed an aversion to that smell since childhood because of that. Never smoked it myself.


----------



## starthrower

Bulldog said:


> I remember that I voted for the only candidate who openly admits to smoking pot.


Did he/she inhale?


----------



## Bulldog

starthrower said:


> Did he/she inhale?


Yes, it was Gary Johnson from my state of New Mexico. He would have been a fine president except that he's a little behind on the subject of geography.


----------



## Red Terror

I smoked pot irregularly from senior high (no pun intended) up until the end of my college years.

I'd probably still partake if it wasn't for my general distaste for smoking.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Red Terror said:


> I smoked pot irregularly from senior high (no pun intended) up until the end of my college years.
> 
> I'd probably still partake if it wasn't for my general distaste for smoking.


There's always pot brownies, not that I recommend it but...


----------



## Luchesi

Thinking back about my friends who I've played music with, the ones who could really hear music (and their ears never got tired) without the help of THC were the lucky ones. The music just came out of them (no drugs needed). I think it has to do with very early exposure to music (from the few musicians I've discussed it with). I started at eleven, I missed the foundation of the first pathways.


----------



## Flamme




----------



## mrdoc

Luchesi said:


> Thinking back about my friends who I've played music with, the ones who could really hear music (and their ears never got tired) without the help of THC were the lucky ones. The music just came out of them (no drugs needed). I think it has to do with very early exposure to music (from the few musicians I've discussed it with). I started at eleven, I missed the foundation of the first pathways.


I think you are onto it, you do not need mind altering substances to enjoy your self or to play/enjoy music I have posted of my early days of playing in Jazz Bands in the 50s 60s in England and none of us were into that kind of thing but when the gigs were finished we did indulge in a pint of best Bitter. I would guess that if you succumb to Marijuana then you are hooked.


----------



## sstucky

1. It should be legalized and taxed like tobacco.
2. Never.


----------



## bz3

Should be illegal to sell, legal to grow, and legal to possess. I do not use it.


----------



## mrdoc

bz3 said:


> Should be illegal to sell, legal to grow, and legal to possess. I do not use it.


All users should be shot slowly (just kiddin) :wave:


----------



## Flamme




----------



## bz3

mrdoc said:


> All users should be shot slowly (just kiddin) :wave:


How does one get shot slowly? Do you pile a bunch of pillows on top of them and then shoot through it?


----------



## mrdoc

bz3 said:


> How does one get shot slowly? Do you pile a bunch of pillows on top of them and then shoot through it?


It is a saying that is nonsensical but if you can imagine traveling at say 2499.99 ft/sec and assuming that a bullet has been fired at your back at a speed of 2500ft/sec then it will take some time to penetrate and painfully destroy various bits of your body.
This would hurt, which is the point...


----------



## science

Given how things are going now, I might want to skip right to much stronger things than pot.


----------



## starthrower

science said:


> Given how things are going now, I might want to skip right to much stronger things than pot.


The liquor stores are doing a booming business during the lockdown, so I guess most people are getting smashed.


----------



## science

starthrower said:


> The liquor stores are doing a booming business during the lockdown, so I guess most people are getting smashed.


I've had a few extra myself. People say it doesn't help, and I suppose it doesn't, but nothing else that I can do helps either. And I personally have it relatively good.

I guess normal life is always a bit of a fiction, a story that we tell ourselves as long as we can, but we make it a relatively enjoyable fiction, don't we?


----------



## Kopachris

science said:


> I've had a few extra myself. People say it doesn't help, and I suppose it doesn't, but nothing else that I can do helps either. And I personally have it relatively good.
> 
> I guess normal life is always a bit of a fiction, a story that we tell ourselves as long as we can, but we make it a relatively enjoyable fiction, don't we?


I've been smoking all day while working from home and have been known to enjoy a beer or a glass of wine after lunch as well lately.


----------



## SixFootScowl

mrdoc said:


> It is a saying that is nonsensical but if you can imagine traveling at say 2499.99 ft/sec and assuming that a bullet has been fired at your back at a speed of 2500ft/sec then it will take some time to penetrate and painfully destroy various bits of your body.
> This would hurt, which is the point...


I don't claim to be adept at physics, but relative to the body the bullet is moving forward at 1/100th foot per second. So it would take little over a minute to penetrate the body if it does not meet bone. However, I maintain that at the relative speed the bullet will not penetrate the body. At most it might produce a small bruise.


----------



## science

SixFootScowl said:


> I don't claim to be adept at physics, but relative to the body the bullet is moving forward at 1/100th foot per second. So it would take little over a minute to penetrate the body if it does not meet bone. However, I maintain that at the relative speed the bullet will not penetrate the body. At most it might produce a small bruise.


I was wondering whether this consideration was worth exploring, but the proponent of the slow shooting can simply assert that the bullet will be slowly propelled by a force sufficient to penetrate whatever obstacles it encounters on its patient path.

Kind of a gruesome reflection, but I wonder if we could actually posit a shooting so slow that the brain manages to regrow around the damage as it occurs? We might get a Phineas Gage kind of situation.


----------



## mrdoc

SixFootScowl said:


> I don't claim to be adept at physics, but relative to the body the bullet is moving forward at 1/100th foot per second. So it would take little over a minute to penetrate the body if it does not meet bone. However, I maintain that at the relative speed the bullet will not penetrate the body. At most it might produce a small bruise.


You do need a sense of humor to appreciate it.  but if you would like to try it...


----------



## Bulldog

Here in Albuquerque there are many shops where you can legally buy pot (assuming you have a medical card). The shop I like best offers free home delivery for orders over $100. There are many types, and most have catchy names. For my most recent shopping adventure, I got a mix of Skywalker, Emerald Lightning, and The Black Kaiser. Edibles are also available for those who have trouble with the smoking or are just hungry. 

How's the trade in your neck of the woods?


----------



## Flamme

Did someone by any chance try the Datura seeds???


----------



## Bulldog

Flamme said:


> Did someone by any chance try the Datura seeds???


Not me - they are dangerous.


----------



## Flamme

Only if u overdo them, so I heard...But they do expand consciousness...Thinking of getting some.:lol:


----------



## Luchesi

Flamme said:


> Only if u overdo them, so I heard...But they do expand consciousness...Thinking of getting some.:lol:


Maybe it can be processed to be safe. Be careful. Post about your experience while you're smoking it. It grows wild here. Jimson Weed, the rabbits wont eat it.


----------



## Flamme

Will do xixi I think its about quantity, one must use only few...I thought of making a tea...Lately, the ''reality' for me is too grey and hollow...I came to believe some natural ''deliriants'' and ''hallucinogenics''...Make u tear down the wall between the world of living and dead spirits...I want to see some people and maybe reach some sort of catharsis...I think its more of a deliriant than hallucinogenic, thats why one must be careful...I would always avoid chemical stuff like lsd, extasy, meth tho...


----------



## starthrower

The only pot I've seen in the past 15 years is the one above my waist. Heading to the gym...


----------



## Bulldog

starthrower said:


> The only pot I've seen in the past 15 years is the one above my waist. Heading to the gym...


I drive by the gym every day - very invigorating. :lol:


----------



## Luchesi

Flamme said:


> Will do xixi I think its about quantity, one must use only few...I thought of making a tea...Lately, the ''reality' for me is too grey and hollow...I came to believe some natural ''deliriants'' and ''hallucinogenics''...Make u tear down the wall between the world of living and dead spirits...I want to see some people and maybe reach some sort of catharsis...I think its more of a deliriant than hallucinogenic, thats why one must be careful...I would always avoid chemical stuff like lsd, extasy, meth tho...


Read the article on wiki first. It's unbiased.


----------



## Luchesi

starthrower said:


> The only pot I've seen in the past 15 years is the one above my waist. Heading to the gym...


Can you imagine the worlds of awareness without help?


----------



## Flamme

Pot only gave me relief and giggling sensation, not really expanding awareness.


----------



## Luchesi

Flamme said:


> Pot only gave me relief and giggling sensation, not really expanding awareness.


Other people have shared that too. I don't know if they and you have a different brains, or it's subtle and you're just missing it.. As a musician or a visual artist you notice new things in the act of creatiivity.

added: If you're that different, be very careful with stronger stuff. Your sanity is all you have. Everything else depends upon it.


----------



## Flamme

Maybe I have some sort of resilience...The most important thing, imho, is control...Without it a servant easily becomes a MASTER.


----------



## Luchesi

Flamme said:


> Maybe I have some sort of resilience...The most important thing, imho, is control...Without it a servant easily becomes a MASTER.


With most subjects, that's correct, but with brain chemicals the 'controller' gets beset, besieged, rapidly overloaded and swamped. If you know what I mean..


----------



## Varick

Tried pot twice in my life. Both times in my 30's. First time I didn't get high, just the sensation you get when you stand up too quickly and get a head rush. That lasted for about 20 mins.

The second time, I certainly got high. I had just arrived at the party, was looking forward to having a cigar, and enjoying the party. I have been awake for almost 40 hours one time and that couldn't compare to the need I had to lie down and go to sleep after getting high. I found a back room, closed the door and laid down on the rug and slept for 3 hours. I woke up and it was time to go home. I missed the party. [email protected] experience and have had ZERO desire to ever try it again. I have never tried any other drug except alcohol.

For mind altering substance, I'll stick to my wine and booze. I hardly ever drink to excess. I do not enjoy the feeling and certainly do not enjoy the next day. I haven't drank for "effect" since my early 20's.

V


----------



## Luchesi

Listening to CM changes your brain and makes your brain different from other folks(?). Is it true that our brains change every month or so (physically)? Imagine how much President Trump's brain has changed.


----------



## Flamme

I sometimes dream about some TRUE anarchic action like slipping a ''mickey'' of halluciongenic or a truth-drug to famous uptight and ''serious'' politicians like Trump, Biden, Hillary and watching the reaction...That would be a sight to see...


----------



## Luchesi

Flamme said:


> I sometimes dream about some TRUE anarchic action like slipping a ''mickey'' of halluciongenic or a truth-drug to famous uptight and ''serious'' politicians like Trump, Biden, Hillary and watching the reaction...That would be a sight to see...


They all have food tasters?


----------



## Flamme

For everything? I dunno
Some months ago I tried to acquire ''Ayahuasca'' but found out its not that EASY
It is also one of ''cathartic'' drugs...


----------



## Jacck

Flamme said:


> For everything? I dunno
> Some months ago I tried to acquire ''Ayahuasca'' but found out its not that EASY
> It is also one of ''cathartic'' drugs...


In my country, there are now magic mushrooms everywhere. It was a rainy year and mushrooms grow like crazy (they grow in september, october, november). You can see many young people crouched in the woods picking the _Psilocybe bohemica_
I see you also have _Psilocybe serbica_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybe_serbica
are they also popular among young people in Serbia?

There are many interesting psychedelic substances. One of the most interesting is Iboga (Ibogain). Ayahuasca is interesting too but can be dangerous (it contains some MAO-inhibitors which can have serious interactions with some medicaments and foods)


----------



## Flamme

I saw those shrooms long time ago! I found these in my garden...They look a bit alike, but Im not certain...What do you think?


----------



## Bulldog

Varick said:


> Tried pot twice in my life. Both times in my 30's. First time I didn't get high, just the sensation you get when you stand up too quickly and get a head rush. That lasted for about 20 mins.
> 
> The second time, I certainly got high. I had just arrived at the party, was looking forward to having a cigar, and enjoying the party. I have been awake for almost 40 hours one time and that couldn't compare to the need I had to lie down and go to sleep after getting high. I found a back room, closed the door and laid down on the rug and slept for 3 hours. I woke up and it was time to go home. I missed the party. [email protected] experience and have had ZERO desire to ever try it again. I have never tried any other drug except alcohol.


The first time, the pot was likely too weak - the 2nd time, too strong for a beginner. You need a strength that's just right for you.


----------



## Jacck

no, those are definitely not shrooms. They look like this
http://www.atlashub.net/houbicky/lysohlavka_ceska/img00007.jpg
they are nipple shaped, a little bluish, and they are beige or gray from the bottom side, but not as brown as your mushrooms in the picture. You need to know the spots where they grow. They dont grow just anywhere in the garden.

Magic Mushroom Hunting: A Field Guide
https://www.zamnesia.com/blog-magic-mushroom-hunting-a-field-guide-n735

if you want to preserve them, you dry them, or some people conserve them in honey.


----------



## Jacck

'They broke my mental shackles': could magic mushrooms be the answer to depression?
https://www.theguardian.com/science...sion-aztecs-psilocybin-mental-health-medicine
there has been a renaissance of psychedelic research in the last decade or so.


----------



## Flamme

Now I read they grow extensively in Czech republic...Maybe its some kind of tree trunks u have in central Europe or Czechia in particular...Like I said, saw thoese shrooms loong time ago, in some forest and found their shape interesting...


----------



## Varick

Bulldog said:


> The first time, the pot was likely too weak - the 2nd time, too strong for a beginner. You need a strength that's just right for you.


Perhaps, but it will be an experience I gladly accept that will never happen. I have nothing against the personal use of pot. I don't believe it should be legalized, but it should certainly be decriminalized. I think it is a plant that has a wide variety of uses that are good.

V


----------



## Jacck

Varick said:


> Perhaps, but it will be an experience I gladly accept that will never happen. I have nothing against the personal use of pot. I don't believe it should be legalized, but it should certainly be decriminalized. I think it is a plant that has a wide variety of uses that are good.
> V


my parents are using home-made cannabis oil and ointment on their sore joints and say it works wonders. Some people even claim it can cure cancer. My best friends mother was dying of cancer a couple of years ago and I helped him create the Rick Simpson drops. It did not save her, but she was already in a very advanced state. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of cannabis induced psychoses in my life. So it is not completely risk free. I am using some CBD oil myself (which does not contain THC and so is legal)


----------



## Varick

Jacck said:


> my parents are using home-made cannabis oil and ointment on their sore joints and say it works wonders. Some people even claim it can cure cancer. My best friends mother was dying of cancer a couple of years ago and I helped him create the Rick Simpson drops. It did not save her, but she was already in a very advanced state. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of cannabis induced psychoses in my life. So it is not completely risk free. I am using some CBD oil myself (which does not contain THC and so is legal)


I am looking into a good quality (not some convenience store version) CBD oil to see if it will help with high pressure in my eyeballs. I don't have glaucoma yet, but for decades I have tested with abnormally high pressure. I would like to prevent glaucoma if possible with a natural solution such as CBD. I just do not want ANY psychoactive effects.

V


----------



## Dan Ante

We have just had a referendum on making Cannabis legal and sanity just won the day with a NO vote (nothing to do with medical use) so we are safe on the roads for another 3 years


----------



## Luchesi

Dan Ante said:


> We have just had a referendum on making Cannabis legal and sanity just won the day with a NO vote (nothing to do with medical use) so we are safe on the roads for another 3 years


Try drinking as much as is legal in your jurisdiction and then drive in your driveway.

Then try getting into the same condition with THC.

What would you say about the two trials?


----------



## Flamme

I can't, for the life of me, see the reason behind prohibition of magic mushrooms and other hallucinogenics...They are not so easy to come by and only a minuscule percent of ''junkies'' use them so the ''social danger'' is almost 0...Are they forbidden in Czechia?


----------



## Varick

Luchesi said:


> Try drinking as much as is legal in your jurisdiction and then drive in your driveway.
> 
> Then try getting into the same condition with THC.
> 
> What would you say about the two trials?


I can't speak for pot, but the legal BAC here in the US is .08% It used to be .1% which was a little more reasonable. .08% is two glasses of wine with dinner. I'm not even getting any kind of buzz with two glasses of wine over two hours and a full stomach. It was fine with .1% BAC, but the politicians gave a nod to MADD (Mother's Against Drunk Driving) and lowered the level to .08% It was a big boon to taxi companies and other Driving services like Uber and Lyft.

V


----------



## Luchesi

Varick said:


> I can't speak for pot, but the legal BAC here in the US is .08% It used to be .1% which was a little more reasonable. .08% is two glasses of wine with dinner. I'm not even getting any kind of buzz with two glasses of wine over two hours and a full stomach. It was fine with .1% BAC, but the politicians gave a nod to MADD (Mother's Against Drunk Driving) and lowered the level to .08% It was a big boon to taxi companies and other Driving services like Uber and Lyft.
> 
> V


The drunk brain responds slowly to crucial changes while driving. Sometimes it's a very slow reaction, sometimes it's all sloshed.

The brain on THC is more attentive, more active, BUT all that activity quickly changes to a resting state in which your muscles are on automatic and your mind is fixating on something it's been distracted by. Just as quickly you come back and re-double your efforts to concentrate on good driving (not just casual driving). You're a good driver in spurts. You drive much more slowly (and you might become a hazard) because every movement becomes a deliberate movement. Your brain is working very fast, but it can't keep up with such complexities.

Which one is more dangerous? Both the same?


----------



## Jacck

Flamme said:


> I can't, for the life of me, see the reason behind prohibition of magic mushrooms and other hallucinogenics...They are not so easy to come by and only a minuscule percent of ''junkies'' use them so the ''social danger'' is almost 0...Are they forbidden in Czechia?


it used to be fully legal until only a couple of years ago. Now you are not allowed to possess the shrooms in some "higher quantity than small" (that is the definition in the law). If the police caught you with it, you would likely get just a fine. So it is illegal, but the penalties are not very severe if you have it just for your own consumption. If you were selling it, it would likely be more severe. And it is true that shrooms (or hallucinogens in general) are pretty safe. Typical junkies (who do amphetamines, opiates, benzodiazepines) avoid this stuff. There is a trend worldwide to decriminalize both weed and shrooms. I read that Colorado alraedy legalized it, and other states in the US will possibly follow
https://www.vice.com/en/article/ywkg77/legalizing-decriminalizing-mushrooms-psilocybin


----------



## Flamme

I smoked pot last time probably 20 years ago...I was thinking about it few years ago but now I'm no really interested in it...Something that expands the consciousness is in my crosshairs...I feel like an old browser with a LOAD of cache junk that needs to be cleaned and removed. And for communication with ''the other side''. I think ppl should avoid chemical drugs like a plague, chemically altered natural drugs...I hear lots of grass iis ''spiked'' with all kinds of bad substances to ''enhance'' its effect, so I think we should be careful...My sister used to smoke pot without mum knowing it...When she moved from the house to live with then boyfriend we found some pot or hash in one of the drawers...Mum was furious and we threw it away! Now I wish I kept it...


----------



## Luchesi

Flamme said:


> I smoked pot last time probably 20 years ago...I was thinking about it few years ago but now I'm no really interested in it...Something that expands the consciousness is in my crosshairs...I feel like an old browser with a LOAD of cache junk that needs to be cleaned and removed. And for communication with ''the other side''. I think ppl should avoid chemical drugs like a plague, chemically altered natural drugs...I hear lots of grass iis ''spiked'' with all kinds of bad substances to ''enhance'' its effect, so I think we should be careful...My sister used to smoke pot without mum knowing it...When she moved from the house to live with then boyfriend we found some pot or hash in one of the drawers...Mum was furious and we threw it away! Now I wish I kept it...


Talking to people here, now that laws are changing, I'm learning that starting on your junket should always be a quest for recreation and experimentation. It's not for fixing things. It won't. It will generally make things worse because of the psychotically-addicting powers of any mind-altering substance.

If you're depressed it might lead to an exploration of depression. You don't want that.

If you're happy, it will make you happier. At least temporarily..


----------



## Flamme

I was always a very SPIRITUAL person who felt things other failed to notice...Im not afraid...I know it will open doors...It is only a key for me...


----------



## Dan Ante

Luchesi said:


> Try drinking as much as is legal in your jurisdiction and then drive in your driveway.
> 
> Then try getting into the same condition with THC.
> 
> What would you say about the two trials?


I should not have said we are safe on the roads what I meant was we are no worse off.
First, I do not drink and drive
Second, I am not stupid so would never take THC
Thirdly, I am not able to comment.

Obviously you are trying to make a point so just make your point.


----------



## Flamme

Wow bro...U paint pot like its some vile substance like crack or smack or whatever...


----------



## Jacck

Luchesi said:


> Talking to people here, now that laws are changing, I'm learning that starting on your junket should always be a quest for recreation and experimentation. It's not for fixing things. It won't. It will generally make things worse because of the psychotically-addicting powers of any mind-altering substance.
> If you're depressed it might lead to an exploration of depression. You don't want that.
> If you're happy, it will make you happier. At least temporarily..


the psychedelics have potentially healing powers, if you use them with respect and to obtain self-knowledge. They can make you more spiritual and change your outlook of life. But it is true, that during the hippie era when they were legal for some 10 years for mass consumption, they did not bring much change. Most of those hippies just wanted to get high, and after they came to middle age, they just settled down and became as conservative as their parents. Czechoslovakia was an LSD research powerhouse, we were the last country in the world to prohibit LSD (I think 1972). Stanislav Grof was a famous Czech psychiatrist who led research with 1000 patients and then emigrated to the USA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Grof
his first couple books (LSD Psychotherapy and Beyond Brain) about the LSD research and LSD psychoterapy are very interesting, later he degenerated into New Age spiritual babble.


----------



## Flamme




----------



## Jacck

worth watching


----------



## EdwardBast

Flamme said:


> For everything? I dunno
> Some months ago I tried to acquire ''Ayahuasca'' but found out its not that EASY
> It is also one of ''cathartic'' drugs...


Jeezus dude! I've been reading your crazed flirtation with "off-brand" hallucinogens for pages now. Just buy some acid already like normal people do. Safe (relatively), effective, long-lasing, and cheap.


----------



## Flamme

Bro, thats chemical!!!Now I have discovered Salvia...


----------



## Guest

I never have and I never will.


----------



## Dan Ante

Flamme said:


> Bro, thats chemical!!!Now I have discovered Salvia...


It is spelt Saliva.....................


----------



## Flamme

Oh you sober-nik...


----------



## EdwardBast

Flamme said:


> *Bro, thats chemical!!!*Now I have discovered Salvia...


So are all the substances you mentioned. The difference is quality and dosage control, which acid generally has and "natural" drugs don't.


----------



## Flamme

Nah they natural...Growing in nature...Not mixed with any ''foreign fluid'' to boost its effect...Anyway I chewed some crunched Salvia last night...I thought it was all a hype...But then...I felt euphoric, reality started to bend a bit...I didn't chew much so it stayed on that effect...I felt full of energy...Went to bed, had some funky dreams...Almost slept over my waking hour for job, but got up without alarm around 6:30! Was smiling all day...But then I saw the world clearly than ever...In all its nakedness and hypocrisy...Some sadness, but a quiet one not like before...


----------



## Jacck

EdwardBast said:


> So are all the substances you mentioned. The difference is quality and dosage control, which acid generally has and "natural" drugs don't.


If you buy "acid", you never really know what you are buying. You buy some blotter with some substance or several substances. There are hundreds of various designer drugs which might be sold to you as "acid". You are like an experimental rabbit. 
https://www.medicaldaily.com/new-de...-people-poison-centers-fear-trend-will-328848


----------



## Flamme

Second effect.the sharpening of ones eyesight...I'm short sighted in general...It makes you see some small details, you never noticed before...But not all! lol The choice is rather peculiar...


Dan Ante said:


> It is spelt Saliva.....................


The third one. Salvia eliminates all the saliva! lol I usually have a bit of a watery mouth but since yesterday it is as dry as bone...And i like it...


----------



## Dan Ante

Flamme said:


> Nah they natural...Growing in nature...Not mixed with any ''foreign fluid'' to boost its effect...Anyway I chewed some crunched Salvia last night...I thought it was all a hype...But then...I felt euphoric, reality started to bend a bit...I didn't chew much so it stayed on that effect...I felt full of energy...Went to bed, had some funky dreams...*Almost slept over my waking hour for job, but got up without alarm around 6:30! *Was smiling all day...But then I saw the world clearly than ever...In all its nakedness and hypocrisy...Some sadness, but a quiet one not like before...


Just what is your job Flamme??


----------



## Flamme

Can tell you in pm...


----------



## Dan Ante

Flamme said:


> Can tell you in pm...


If it embarrasses you don't bother.


----------



## Flamme

Why projecting bro...I'm just not sharing my info publicly with a random somebody...


----------



## Dan Ante

Flamme said:


> Why projecting bro...I'm just not sharing my info publicly with a random somebody...


Yeh OK just forget it no problem :cheers:


----------



## clavichorder

I try to minimize my use because I have this deal where it takes me a week or so to recover completely from a sort of mental fog, which can be disconcerting at work. But when I do use it, maybe once a month(sometimes more, sometimes less), I try to make it count. Get really high, do something appropriate with it.


----------



## Flamme

Dan Ante said:


> Yeh OK just forget it no problem :cheers:


I just dk what caught your attention, the fact I almost slept over or the fact it was 6:30...You never got up ''that early''?


----------



## Dan Ante

Flamme said:


> I just dk what caught your attention, the fact I almost slept over or the fact it was 6:30...You never got up ''that early''?


OK if you want to pursue it further you posted that you had partaken of drugs, had funky dreams, and next day went to work and saw the world differently.
I asked about your job to see if you were a threat to others as you would be if others relied on you i.e a taxi or bus driver, an aircraft pilot, Doctor, Lawyer, Police Officer etc. so now your turn to answer my question.
Getting up early?? 6:30 is normal for me even now that I am retired.


----------



## Flamme

I work in data processing and administration...Mostly about energy bills...I might screw up some numbers but nobody died because of it...That I know of!!!


----------

