Re: Legalization of Marijuana

by **CivBase** on Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:47 am

Onyxknight wrote:don't get me started on inhalants...

Don't need to.
Inhailants are poisons, not drugs, end of story.

by Onyxknight on Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:48 am

CivBase wrote:
Onyxknight wrote:don't get me started on inhalants...

Don't need to.
Inhailants are poisons, not drugs, end of story.

right the ngood day/night whatever you want to call it ^.^

by KristallNacht on Sun Dec 07, 2008 4:11 am

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

People still do it now. So that won't increase. In fact, after the first time, I know of no one that has driven high again.

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

Only a small few ever got to once a day. And the people I know that moved up to E only did so because their dealers said "hey you should try this." They didn't go in search of it, or even think about trying it.

civbase wrote:
In your post you quoted yourself. Go ahead and look.

or you could show me.

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

You'd be surprised who does and does not use marijuana.

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

I've found a LOT of people. None have had problems. One of my friends PARENTS even smoke. They have for a long time. Either way, you're using the rare but possible situations as a generality.

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

What you said was repeated outside stimulation that causes the body to release a hormone/chemical eventually leads to no regular releases of such a hormone/chemical.

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

Long term drinking of coffee has long term problems. It's proven that drinking coffee/caffeinated products on a regular basis reduces the brains functionality when not under its influenced. Second, Marijuana has no withdrawals, and thus isn't addictive. People want it, but I've never found anyone that has ever felt that they needed it. Even when off it for over a month.

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

I said it makes the act more dangerous, though still not much more dangerous, but it decreases the chance the act will happen. You also seem to think that DUI instantly = death. How many people drink and drive and don't die? A SHIT LOAD. I still have yet to here of a marijuana induced traffic collision.

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

Drugs use their own chemicals to INDUCE a chemical release in the body. Sex uses action to induce a chemical release.

Oh, and Marijuana doesn't give you lung cancer, genius.

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

Marijuana doesn't give you lung cancer either, and as I've said already, we are on one point, the dangerous effects of marijuana are a different piece of the puzzle. Too bad you are talking about this piece of CHEMICAL DEPENDANCY. Lung cancer has nothing to do with dependancy.

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

Congratulations. One woman, in a contest, drank 8 gallons of water and died. Thus, water MUST always kill people!!!! See the ignorance?

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

Go get high or drink. Judgment isn't the first thing to go. It's actually one of the later things to go. With marijuana, your judgment actually gets better in the areas it actually matters.

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

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

Brilliant, now actually find out how long that person had been smoking and how many a day. Chances are its far longer and far more times a day than anyone that smokes marijuana does. Don't you love it when people use information completely out of context.

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

It's not an inhalant. It's an incense. It's meant to be used as an incense. And people that do illegal things with it SMOKE IT like they would any plant.

by **BBJynne** on Sun Dec 07, 2008 4:18 am

I'd start using marijuana if it was legal, but i don't use now

im thinking a few people would also do that

just putting that out there

by **CivBase** on Sun Dec 07, 2008 4:36 am

KristallNacht wrote:
CivBase wrote:
Doesn't matter. My point is that people will still do it.

People still do it now. So that won't increase. In fact, after the first time, I know of no one that has driven high again.

Sure it will increase. More people with the drug = more driving while high.

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

Only a small few ever got to once a day. And the people I know that moved up to E only did so because their dealers said "hey you should try this." They didn't go in search of it, or even think about trying it.

Yah, but they had no reason to say no being as their marijuana wasn't providing a high any more.

KristallNacht wrote:
civbase wrote:
In your post you quoted yourself. Go ahead and look.

or you could show me.

How? In a quote?
Fine, I'll get a screeny because you're too lazy to check it.
Here

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

I've found a LOT of people. None have had problems. One of my friends PARENTS even smoke. They have for a long time. Either way, you're using the rare but possible situations as a generality.

And prehaps they have a physical dependence instead of a psycological one. Chemical dependences are psycological.

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

What you said was repeated outside stimulation that causes the body to release a hormone/chemical eventually leads to no regular releases of such a hormone/chemical.

I never said that the stimulation causes it. It is mearly a side effect.

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

I said it makes the act more dangerous, though still not much more dangerous, but it decreases the chance the act will happen. You also seem to think that DUI instantly = death. How many people drink and drive and don't die? A SHIT LOAD. I still have yet to here of a marijuana induced traffic collision.

Not near as many people smoke marijuana as those that drink alcohol. And I do not think that DUI means instant death, but there is a definite chance, far greater than regular driving.

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

Drugs use their own chemicals to INDUCE a chemical release in the body. Sex uses action to induce a chemical release.

Yes, exactly. And the chemicals that induce the reaction have such undesired side effects.

KristallNacht wrote:Oh, and Marijuana doesn't give you lung cancer, genius.

But the smoke from it does. Last I check, you don't smoke sex.

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

Marijuana doesn't give you lung cancer either, and as I've said already, we are on one point, the dangerous effects of marijuana are a different piece of the puzzle. Too bad you are talking about this piece of CHEMICAL DEPENDANCY. Lung cancer has nothing to do with dependancy.

So? Because we're talking about a specific effect I can't refur to others?

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

Congratulations. One woman, in a contest, drank 8 gallons of water and died. Thus, water MUST always kill people!!!! See the ignorance?

You've already said that you can't OD on marijuana. And, you just said that we can't refur to other effects. Drinking 8 gallons of water has nothing to do with chemical dependency.

KristallNacht wrote:
civbase wrote:
Said it before, saying it again. Judgement is the first thing to go.

Go get high or drink. Judgment isn't the first thing to go. It's actually one of the later things to go. With marijuana, your judgment actually gets better in the areas it actually matters.

Yah, you'd think that because your judgement is the first thing to go.

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

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

Brilliant, now actually find out how long that person had been smoking and how many a day. Chances are its far longer and far more times a day than anyone that smokes marijuana does. Don't you love it when people use information completely out of context.

You're right. Maybe that person was doing a pack a day for 50 years strait. Silly me, using unrealistic examples. So now let's do some math... so marijuana twice a day for 50 years gets you the same result. Waduya know.

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

It's not an inhalant. It's an incense. It's meant to be used as an incense. And people that do illegal things with it SMOKE IT like they would any plant.

Okay, then it should be illegal. Your point? I'm guessing it's something like with the alcohol, it should be outlawed before marijuana. Well guess what? You're right. Here's a cookie.

However, I still fail to see the relation between this and marijuana.

BBJynne wrote:I'd start using marijuana if it was legal, but i don't use now

im thinking a few people would also do that

just putting that out there

I'd say don't, but that wouldn't go over so well in a debate thread.

by ReconToaster on Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:04 am

You're right. Maybe that person was doing a pack a day for 50 years strait. Silly me, using unrealistic examples. So now let's do some math... so marijuana twice a day for 50 years gets you the same result. Waduya know.

Again, as NT said, this is completely irrelevant. Cigarettes have nicotine and are thus addictive. Marijuana is not. Most pot smokers do not smoke twice a day. Many are much more casual, and only smoke on occasion.

by **Lord Pheonix** on Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:26 am

I know dudes that drive better high, boosts their conecentration

Its only illegeal because the government can't make a profit off of it.

They made alcohol illegal at one point, but brought it back once THEY were the main and ONLY distributor of it. Making sure that they make the money.

If they could find a way to be the only seller of marijuana then they would do the same and make it legal, but they can't and for the forseeable future won't.

by Gold Spartan on Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:54 am

Hell no. Just HELL NO! The long term(and short term) effects are even worse than tobacco. as said previously, Marijuana effects your vision, builds up tar in your lungs faster than cigarettes, and increases your rate of cancer at a faster rate than tobacco. The marijuana plant should be erased from existence! If you ask me.

by KristallNacht on Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:36 am

CivBase wrote:
Sure it will increase. More people with the drug = more driving while high.

More people paranoid about driving = less people driving high.
More people inclined to stay home and watch cops = less people driving

civbase wrote:
Yah, but they had no reason to say no being as their marijuana wasn't providing a high any more.

Actually it was. Many went back to marijuana exclusively. But that doesn't change the fact ASSOCIATION caused them to try it in the first place.

civbase wrote:
Here

I'll give you that, I accidentally forgot to cut that part out...so my statement in response to myself was actually waht you had said prior to that.

civbase wrote:
And prehaps they have a physical dependence instead of a psycological one. Chemical dependences are psycological.

Chemical Dependencies are physical. A dependency replaced with use of a PLACEBO = psychological. Either way, that doesn't change the fact very few have serious problems associated with marijuana. Those that do are irresponsible with their entire lives in the first place.

civbase wrote:
I never said that the stimulation causes it. It is mearly a side effect.

But the stimulation of drugs causes natural chemicals to be released. As you yourself have said.

civbase wrote:
Not near as many people smoke marijuana as those that drink alcohol. And I do not think that DUI means instant death, but there is a definite chance, far greater than regular driving.

About the same amount of people smoke marijuana now as drank during the prohibition. And Marijuana based DUIs have a far lesser chance of getting into an accident than an alcohol induced DUI.

civbase wrote:
Yes, exactly. And the chemicals that induce the reaction have such undesired side effects.

Thus your argument that marijuana has a very unique and unprecedented side effect of lowered endorphin levels is null and void. Thanks for playing.

[qoute="civbase"]But the smoke from it does. Last I check, you don't smoke sex.[/quote]
Nor are you required to smoke marijuana.

civbase wrote:
So? Because we're talking about a specific effect I can't refur to others?

Not in relation to this bit of the argument, no. That would be a very scapegoat like tactic to attempt to substitute in an unrelated point to cover up the fact that one was falling apart.

civbase wrote:
You've already said that you can't OD on marijuana. And, you just said that we can't refur to other effects. Drinking 8 gallons of water has nothing to do with chemical dependency.

The point being made (via sarcasm which you don't seem to understand) is that using a solitary event as a standard is horribly ignorant.

civbase wrote:
Yah, you'd think that because your judgement is the first thing to go.

Except I'm looking back and judging the situation. The first thing to go is, and always will be, the pointless social boundaries people use to limit their actions.

civbase wrote:
You're right. Maybe that person was doing a pack a day for 50 years strait. Silly me, using unrealistic examples. So now let's do some math... so marijuana twice a day for 50 years gets you the same result. Waduya know.

Now look at peoples smoking habits. Oh wait, not that many people smoke marijuana twice a day. AND when they do, chances are they aren't even getting an entire cigarette's worth of marijuana.

civbase wrote:
Okay, then it should be illegal. Your point? I'm guessing it's something like with the alcohol, it should be outlawed before marijuana. Well guess what? You're right. Here's a cookie.

However, I still fail to see the relation between this and marijuana.

Things are legal for certain purposes and may be used outside. Doesn't stop the thing from being legal.

Lord Pheonix wrote:
Its only illegeal because the government can't make a profit off of it.

Actually, they very easily could. LA already has cannabis vending machines. By TAXING the weed, the government makes profit. Get it sold at wal-mart (since they'd sell anything) and it gets taxed.

Gold Spartan5 wrote:Hell no. Just HELL NO! The long term(and short term) effects are even worse than tobacco.

Explain.

by **Lord Pheonix** on Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:17 am

Marijuana builds up more tar?

Thats just plain lies

by capn qwerty on Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:37 pm

"Pics or it didn't happen!"

Should we?