Marijuana 20 times more harmful than cigarettes?

[SuicideKing]

Last couple weed threads have been in this sub section so I figured I'd post this here, I know a fair bit of people on the boards have maintained that marijuana is no big deal, less harmful than alcohol, cigarettes, etc etc.. So I thought this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080129/hl_nm/cancer_cannabis_dc;_ylt=Aj8G_ja6uDAOJKwwkVO7jfcDW7 oF) might interest them.

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer risk, scientists in New Zealand have found, as they warned of an "epidemic" of lung cancers linked to cannabis.

Studies in the past have demonstrated that cannabis can cause cancer, but few have established a strong link between cannabis use and the actual incidence of lung cancer.

In an article published in the European Respiratory Journal, the scientists said cannabis could be expected to harm the airways more than tobacco as its smoke contained twice the level of carcinogens, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, compared with tobacco cigarettes.

The method of smoking also increases the risk, since joints are typically smoked without a proper filter and almost to the very tip, which increases the amount of smoke inhaled. The cannabis smoker inhales more deeply and for longer, facilitating the deposition of carcinogens in the airways.

"Cannabis smokers end up with five times more carbon monoxide in their bloodstream (than tobacco smokers)," team leader Richard Beasley, at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, said in a telephone interview.

[Suave Peanut]

Even if this were true, tobacco smokers smoke at least 20 times as many cigarettes as marijuana smokers. Wouldn't that pretty much even things out?

[Goronmon]

In other words...use a bong?

[roboninja]

Even if this were true, tobacco smokers smoke at least 20 times as many cigarettes as marijuana smokers. Wouldn't that pretty much even things out?

Obviously (at least to most). That being said, I still would find it hard to believe. The most harmful chemicals in tobacco smoke are added by the processing it goes through. Colour me partly skeptical, but even more heedless.

[51|RandoM]

If we cared about how harmful something was you wouldn't be able to drink alcohol in this country.

[mr. murphy]

Human lungs weren't meant to inhale smoke of any kind. Anything that burns and gives off smoke creates things that are harmful to your lungs.

"the scientists said cannabis could be expected to harm the airways more than tobacco as its smoke contained twice the level of carcinogens, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, compared with tobacco cigarettes."

How do they go from this to 20 times more?

[The_Darr]

I always knew New Zealand hated the mary-jane.

[Yellowman]

I call bullshit, there was that study of 22000 people back in '06 that showed that long term cannabis users and occasional tokers showed no increased risk of lung disease despite the much greater amount of potentially harmful chemicals in marijuana. I will refer you to this article here. (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/533048) These scientists are not exactly on the cutting edge of research, people have known that cannabis contains more harmful chemicals in it, what is interesting is why that isn't causing an increase in lung cancer for heavy smokers. Some say its the THC... good old THC, is there anything you can't do?

EDIT: I just read the article, a fucking TINY sample size, absolutely ridiculous use of science and statistics. Typical Kiwi attempt at scientific research... (for any New Zealanders out there, I'm only kidding!)

[mr. murphy]

I call bullshit, there was that study of 22000 people back in '06 that showed that long term cannabis users and occasional tokers showed no increased risk of lung disease despite the much greater amount of potentially harmful chemicals in marijuana. I will refer you to this article here. (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/533048) These scientists are not exactly on the cutting edge of research, people have known that cannabis contains more harmful chemicals in it, what is interesting is why that isn't causing an increase in lung cancer for heavy smokers.

Wasn't there a study done that suggested there were things in cigarette tobacco that cause micro-lesions in your lung tissue, causing the chemicals and carcinogens to access your bloodstream at a higher rate?

Googling for the study... read about it through an anti-cigarette email, so it may be suspect, but I've heard this is why clove cigarettes hurt your lungs so much more as well.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

This sounds like bs, why only target joints first of all.

Do they take the type of paper into consideration? What about plant cellulose papers, fuck this "study". Im sure they would say a blunt is 20x more harmful if they wanted to. Also, can they identify all of these potentially harmful carcinogens? Is their a correlation to the type of weed they used and risk? Hydro, soil based? Improperly grown, thus some carcinogens are from plant food? There are way too many factors at play.

[Achilles]

Human lungs weren't meant to inhale smoke of any kind. Anything that burns and gives off smoke creates things that are harmful to your lungs.

"the scientists said cannabis could be expected to harm the airways more than tobacco as its smoke contained twice the level of carcinogens, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, compared with tobacco cigarettes."

How do they go from this to 20 times more?Presumably because it's unfiltered, people tend to hold the smoke in their lungs longer, and people smoke it down to the end, as they mentioned.

How about people just stop smoking things? I managed to get away with never smoking anything. It is possible, and I'd argue that it's actually less work.

[Yellowman]

How about people just stop smoking things? I managed to get away with never smoking anything. It is possible, and I'd argue that it's actually less work.

Yeah and breathing of course. Did you know Oxygen slowly corrodes the lining of your lungs causing you to shorten your life expectancy? Maybe you should try giving that up too!

[Goronmon]

How about people just stop smoking things? I managed to get away with never smoking anything. It is possible, and I'd argue that it's actually less work.Perhaps video games really are bad for you. How about you just stop playing them? Plenty of people manage to never pick a controller. It is possible and would save you tons of money and make you less lazy.

[Achilles]

Yeah and breathing of course. Did you know Oxygen slowly corrodes the lining of your lungs causing you to shorten your life expectancy? Maybe you should try giving that up too!Yeah, right. Ok so you're saying smoking is as essential to you as breathing. Good luck with that.

I can't survive not breathing, your argument is ridiculous.Perhaps video games really are bad for you. How about you just stop playing them? Plenty of people manage to never pick a controller. It is possible and would save you tons of money and make you less lazy.Well if they start putting health warnings on video games I'll consider it. However I'd be out of a job. So no. If you smoke for a living I can see why you do it.

[NationalKato]

That's it, I'm going to live in a bubble. If you guys need me for some Burnout online action, come find me in my bubble.

[Yellowman]

No I was actually just suggesting that you should hold your breath till you pass out therefore stopping you from being a preachy SOB and let the rest of us get back to the topic at hand. Imagine if people wandered around the WoW board telling people they are wasting their lives, just because you find abhorrent it gives you no right to come and preach at me about it.

[Goronmon]

Well if they start putting health warnings on video games I'll consider it.So, whether or not something actually poses health risks is unimportant, as long as there is no official warning stamped on the box? But wait, last time I smoked a bowl there wasn't a warning on the bag of weed. Therefore, using your rule, it's actually not a risk. Sweet.

[Achilles]

No I was actually just suggesting that you should hold your breath till you pass out therefore stopping you from being a preachy SOB and let the rest of us get back to the topic at hand. Imagine if people wandered around the WoW board telling people they are wasting their lives, just because you find abhorrent it gives you no right to come and preach at me about it.I was unaware the Politics and Religion board was actually a smokers support group that couldn't handle the suggestion that someone might choose not to smoke, especially in light of this health information.

You could have just said "Yeah but I like smoking so that's not really an option" Instead you suggest I pass out or silence myself. Wonderful. Alright I will, I've got no dog in the hunt here.

Edit: In other news I'm actually against smoking of cigarettes being banned in public places and I've been in other smoking threads saying that. People should be able to smoke legal substances in their own homes or in private businesses that support it; doesn't mean I've got to think it's a good idea.

[51|RandoM]

Perhaps video games really are bad for you. How about you just stop playing them? Plenty of people manage to never pick a controller. It is possible and would save you tons of money and make you less lazy.

My eyeballs are gritty, my hands curled into arthritic claws, I've got a headache and I might just be dehydrated from over-caffeination(sp?).

I blame Burnout Paradise specifically and videogames in general.

[Goronmon]

Alright I will, I've got no dog in the hunt here.So, you just wanted to point out you were "above" smoking? Great, thanks for your contribution to the thread.

[Arnold Darkshner]

Vaporizer, that's all I gotta say. Get's you way higher and no damaging effects on the lungs.

[Yellowman]

I was unaware the Politics and Religion board was actually a smokers support group that couldn't handle the suggestion that someone might choose not to smoke, especially in light of this health information.

You could have just said "Yeah but I like smoking so that's not really an option" Instead you suggest I pass out or silence myself. Wonderful. Alright I will, I've got no dog in the hunt here.


I made an off the cuff remark that was a little tongue in cheek which for some reason you chose to take literally. Just admit you were being a preachy SOB who thinks he's 'better' than smokers and we can move on and forget about it.

[mr. murphy]

You could have just said "Yeah but I like smoking so that's not really an option" Instead you suggest I pass out or silence myself. Wonderful. Alright I will, I've got no dog in the hunt here.

Personally, I didn't think your comment was out of line. But I'm not defensive about my choice to smoke marijuana. I don't smoke cigs, and I excersize and eat right. I enjoy having my vice. The findings in this study aren't a surprise to me, altho every study is just a study and I don't take it as gospel either.

To me, it should be obvious to anyone that inhaling smoke is bad for you. If you choose to do it anyway, that's certainly no skin off my back. I smoke marijuana, and wouldn't give it up no matter what a study told me - because the males in my family have a history of smoking, and the only cancer in the family has been breast cancer in the females on my mothers' side, whereas I've had two grandfathers and a grandma who never touched the stuff die of lung cancer from cigarettes. That's just family. In my life, I've seen a lot of cancer, and it's never the stoners who have it - it's the pack-a-days that have been smoking cigs for twenty years. It's just anecdotal evidence, but the evidence from your own life is often a more powerful force than numbers on a page.

Marijuana smoke is bad for you, and inhaling it without a filter probably makes it worse - but cigarette smokers smoke many, many more cigarettes a day than the average weed smoker will smoke in joints, cigarettes have other added chemicals and components that are bad for you, and that part about who holds it in longer is just speculation - go outside on a smoke break and watch smokers, many of them hold it in just like a hit of weed.

[Grey]

well life is dangerous and ends mostly fatal.

[Lima Beans]

well life is dangerous and ends mostly fatal.

might as well just end it all now then,eh?

[mr. murphy]

well life is dangerous and ends mostly fatal.

No one here gets out alive!!

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/1192/lisalizardqueensz6.jpg

[Schnoogs]

one word.....brownies

[Bone]

I was unaware the Politics and Religion board was actually a smokers support group that couldn't handle the suggestion that someone might choose not to smoke, especially in light of this health information.

You could have just said "Yeah but I like smoking so that's not really an option" Instead you suggest I pass out or silence myself. Wonderful. Alright I will, I've got no dog in the hunt here.Actually you were wondering why everyone didn't just walk the straight and narrow like yourself, at least that's how your other post came across.

I'll take my chances with pot because it mellows me out. I hear being a dick decreases your life expectancy about 20 years.

[mr. murphy]

one word.....brownies

The singer to Nashville Pussy eats weed on a daily basis to keep his lungs cool for singing.

[Achilles]

I made an off the cuff remark that was a little tongue in cheek which for some reason you chose to take literally. Just admit you were being a preachy SOB who thinks he's 'better' than smokers and we can move on and forget about it.Mr. Murphy made the accurate comment that people’s lungs weren’t meant to have smoke in them. My suggestion was that it is a realistic option to not have smoke in them. I don’t really see that as me being a preachy SOB but I did expect some people to be really defensive about their smoking, especially their smoking of marijuana.Personally, I didn't think your comment was out of line. But I'm not defensive about my choice to smoke marijuana. I don't smoke cigs, and I excersize and eat right. I enjoy having my vice. The findings in this study aren't a surprise to me, altho every study is just a study and I don't take it as gospel either...Interesting stuff about your family, really some people just have no predisposition to getting lung cancer, and it's certainly safer for them to smoke than others. Personally both my grandfathers died of either mouth cancer or lung cancer, so I'm staying as far away from the stuff as I can.

I saw another study though that tobacco raises the testosterone level in your body, so guys who don't smoke cigarettes are actually 'lesser men'. They attributed the lack of smoking now to the difference in work ethics between present day and when smoking was most popular during the early part of the 20th century. It's a stretch but it's interesting anyway.

[EternalGamer]

Vaporizer, that's all I gotta say. Get's you way higher and no damaging effects on the lungs.

Preliminary studies certainly have backed this up.

Vapezilla in particular is very good, if pricey.

[Oxonian]

In other words...use a bong?
That might actually make marijuana more dangerous. Bubbling smoke through water cools it and makes it less irritating to lung tissue, but it doesn't necessarily filter out the chemicals that cause DNA damage (thus leading to cancer). So you tend to hold the smoke in your lungs longer and your natural coughing reflex is suppressed, but the amount of damage being done is unaffected. I believe I've seen a study (can't find it now) suggesting that tobacco users who use hookahs have a greater incidence of cancer than you would expect simply from looking at how often they consume tobacco.

[Beelzebud]

Well that settles it. A story from the Hong Kong times, published by Reuters, about a study done by Europeans, and printed on yahoo.com, just cleared everything up.

[Goronmon]

That might actually make marijuana more dangerous.Yeah, I actually did some general browsing on the subject after posting that question, and from what I read, it's questionable, and that joints may actually do a better job of filtering out harmful chemicals. Though, the general consensus was that not enough research has been done on the subject for a clear answer either way.

[MJBuddy]

This thread:

Step 1: Shady Research News Post

Step 2: Defensive Internet Stoners get...defensive.

Step 3: People Discussing the topic.

Step 4: Defensive Internet Stoners get more defensive.


No one is coming to steal your pot. Calm the fuck down. And no, "fuck this study" doesn't make it untrue - I have no idea if it's true or not. It certainly is interesting (which does not mean scary). Hell, Oxonian has a post here that doesn't just say, "hey hey hey smoke weed every day". Whose up for attacking him for it? Anyone? Anyone?

[Goronmon]

I don’t really see that as me being a preachy SOB but I did expect some people to be really defensive about their smoking, especially their smoking of marijuana.So, not only we you being preachy, you were hoping to provoke people into an argument. Even better.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Blah blah blah

Im assuming you reference my post. Did you read it all? If my arguments didnt make sense you should look again. Youre obviously anti-weed.

Troll more.

[karak]

This thread:

Step 1: Shady Research News Post

Step 2: Defensive Internet Stoners get...defensive.

Step 3: People Discussing the topic.

Step 4: Defensive Internet Stoners get more defensive.


No one is coming to steal your pot. Calm the fuck down. And no, "fuck this study" doesn't make it untrue - I have no idea if it's true or not. It certainly is interesting (which does not mean scary). Hell, Oxonian has a post here that doesn't just say, "hey hey hey smoke weed every day". Whose up for attacking him for it? Anyone? Anyone?
QFT
less than 10 and all that.

[torrefaction]

That's funny...I could swear you were WRONG.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm

The funniest part is the difference between the two studies. The study I linked looked at 611 people in Los Angeles County who developed lung cancer, 601 who developed cancer of the head or neck regions, and 1,040 people without cancer who were matched on age, gender and neighborhoo

The study you linked interviewed 79 people. Talk about bullshit statistics.
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb19/youdumbcat/EpicFail02.jpg

[MJBuddy]

Im assuming you reference my post. Did you read it all? If my arguments didnt make sense you should look again. Youre obviously anti-weed.

Troll more.

Why the fuck would I be anti-weed? I could give a fuck what people do with their free time. I'm not referencing any post, I'm referencing the entire thread. Half the posts here are overdefensive stoners afraid to lose their bud. The other half are people discussing the topic.

Guess which half you fall into?

[MJBuddy]

Torre you post would be wonderful had it not broken my page!!

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Why the fuck would I be anti-weed? I could give a fuck what people do with their free time. I'm not referencing any post, I'm referencing the entire thread. Half the posts here are overdefensive stoners afraid to lose their bud. The other half are people discussing the topic.

Guess which half you fall into?

Alright, youre a jackass. Youre god damn attitude shows that you ARE anti-weed. I have been defensive, yes, but not overly so, thats you and for no reason.

Troll more.

[torrefaction]

Torre you post would be wonderful had it not broken my page!!

Anyone remember how to resize/thumbnail images?

[Ancalagon]

It seems weed really DOES make you paranoid!

[Goronmon]

Half the posts here are overdefensive stoners afraid to lose their bud.Well, in my case, I haven't smoked in almost two years and even when I did, it wasn't an everyday thing. So "losing my bud" wouldn't really have much of an affect on my daily activities. But hey, if stereo-typing is what it takes to make yourself feel better about your posts, feel free. ;)

[digitalErich]

I would imagine that if you compared joints to hand-rolled (i.e. absolutely no filter) cigarettes the risks would be substantially more close.

[the soUL TRAder]

It seems weed really DOES make you paranoid!
HaHA! HoHO! HeHEE!

Somebodoy knock at the door?

[the soUL TRAder]

So dosen't this mean we all should be able to buy one joint for every pack of cigarrettes someone buys? I'll take a 100.

And since weed tar isn't mixed with chenicals to make it roll more easily, or made in facilities with industrial strength cleaning chemicals and poisons strong enough to take down 5lb. rats, I figure the pot smoker still comes out ahead.

I mean, think about it, if it comes out of the ground it's probably there for the natural world to make use of, but all the un-natural chemicals cigarette companies use to make their processes more efficient, that's the shit that kills.

[torrefaction]

So dosen't this mean we all should be able to buy one joint for every pack of cigarrettes someone buys? I'll take a 100.

And since joints aren't mixed with tar, or made in facilities with industrial strength cleaning chemicals and poisons strong enough to take down 5lb. rats, I figure the pot smoker still comes out ahead.

I mean, think about it, if it comes out of the ground it's probably there for the natural world to make use of, but all the un-natural chemicals cigarette companies use to make there processes more efficient, that's the shit that kills.

Maybe it would mean that, if it were TRUE.

http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1229982&postcount=39
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm

[Bone]

So you tend to hold the smoke in your lungs longer and your natural coughing reflex is suppressed, I take it you've never smoked, or seen someone smoke, a bong? Hack, cough, choke!

[Beelzebud]

I take it you've never smoked, or seen someone smoke, a bong? Hack, cough, choke!

LOL good point..

[Goronmon]

I take it you've never smoked, or seen someone smoke, a bong? Hack, cough, choke!That's mainly because it's much easier to take absolutely massive rips with a bong, haha.

[Baron Samedi]

Yet another reason cannabis should be legalized - alternative ways of intaking besides smoking.

[harle]

I take it you've never smoked, or seen someone smoke, a bong? Hack, cough, choke!It is recommended to hold the smoke in from 1-3 seconds when smoking from a bong. All the THC is absorbed within that time, so holding it any longer does nothing.

[Baron Samedi]

It is recommended to hold the smoke in from 1-3 seconds when smoking from a bong. All the THC is absorbed within that time, so holding it any longer does nothing.

Yes. The best way to smoke is simply to take the hit and exhale. Holding it in doesn't make you more high, but it does rip up your lungs.

[the soUL TRAder]

Maybe it would mean that, if it were TRUE.

http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1229982&postcount=39
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm

Yeah....I KNOW!

But thanks for annoyingly repeating something I was agreeing with and completely miss the point I was making.

Which was:
Even if this bullshit was true, than why isn't pot 1/20th as legal as smoking tobacco, but still Legal?

However, bottom-line, since lung cancer isn't as prevalent as heart disease and most heart disease is caused by stress, whatever an individual uses to releave the stress in there lives is doing more good than harm, for some people it's tobacco, some alchohol, some weed, there are better things to do than these, but it dosen't mean they shouldn't all be available.

[Lord Dongkey]

Boil off the oil.

Bake something nice.

No need to argue then?

[mr. murphy]

Personally both my grandfathers died of either mouth cancer or lung cancer, so I'm staying as far away from the stuff as I can.

And they were weed smokers, or weed and cigarette smokers? Out of curiosity, not out of any manipulative effort to prove a point. I don't think there's anything that can be proved by a bunch of nerds on a forum, and I don't plan on trying! :D

My youngest bro dips. Puts liquid cancer in his mouth and holds it there. I can't conceive of what would make a person do that, and I am not looking forward to the day his face rots off.

[Wyrm]

Yes. The best way to smoke is simply to take the hit and exhale. Holding it in doesn't make you more high, but it does rip up your lungs.

I've heard both. I've heard you try to hold it as long as possible, but I've also heard it doesn't matter.

I do know this: coughing makes you 10x more high. That is a scientific fact. Also, if you have not seen it, Pineapple Express. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb4xsz0aNBk)

[Wackman3000]

Everytime I see a weed thread it always turns into a pissing match between the overly-defensive stoners and the trolling anti-drug flamers.

Can't we all just burn one and get over it? http://www.winnipegheights.com/forums/images/smilies/new/icon093.gif

[iHap]

It's funny how all the stoners think it's ok to do something illegal. If MJ was legal, then I wouldn't care. (Excluding the people who need it for medical reasons)

[Achilles]

And they were weed smokers, or weed and cigarette smokers? Out of curiosity, not out of any manipulative effort to prove a point. I don't think there's anything that can be proved by a bunch of nerds on a forum, and I don't plan on trying! :D

My youngest bro dips. Puts liquid cancer in his mouth and holds it there. I can't conceive of what would make a person do that, and I am not looking forward to the day his face rots off.Tobacco, both of them cigars and cigarettes. Back during their day they knew about the risks but they’d smoke anyway, heck nearly everybody did in the 40s.

Chewing tobacco is the most messed up stuff. We had a guy who did that in our office Halo guild back 4 jobs ago. He liked it, didn’t care how bad it was for him. They mix that stuff with fiberglass last time I heard; the mico-cuts get the nicotine in your system faster.

I really don’t understand why anyone does any of this stuff; I’ll stick with video games. The worst that’ll happen is bad eyesight as long as you still get exercise, and after 20 years of playing them I’ve still got 20/20 vision. I guess there's also the heightened ability to kill that I gain from playing so many murder simulators, but that's more of a life-tool than a health ailment. :p

[Dirty Harry]

It's funny how all the stoners think it's ok to do something illegal. If MJ was legal, then I wouldn't care. (Excluding the people who need it for medical reasons)

Its funny how all the people in the world think its OK that something generally considered harmless is illegal/BAD and they are A-ok with that but if it were Legal, they would then consider it a good thing. Stop letting laws define what is right and what is wrong.

[mr. murphy]

It's funny how all the stoners think it's ok to do something illegal. If MJ was legal, then I wouldn't care. (Excluding the people who need it for medical reasons)

It's funny to me when people think legal/illegal means okay/not okay. Slavery was fine until it was outlawed! There are so many things that are illegal that we don't enforce, because some laws are just stupid.

http://www.dumblaws.com/

Just because something is illegal/legal doesn't mean we should fight for change. My smoking doesn't hurt anyone or support drug dealers, there's no valid reason for it to be illegal and I refuse to obey that law. I'm a patriot!

[Deadend]

Most people I know who smoke, smoke both.

Besides, there are vaporizors. Or whatever, who gives a crap. At least now someone smoking weed won't be going "HACK! COUGH! TOTALLY SAFE! HACK!"

[iHap]

Its funny how all the people in the world think its OK that something generally considered harmless is illegal/BAD and they are A-ok with that but if it were Legal, they would then consider it a good thing. Stop letting laws define what is right and what is wrong.

But I'm not defining MJ as right or wrong, I'm just saying it's illegal.

[harle]

Its funny how all the people in the world think its OK that something generally considered harmless is illegal/BAD and they are A-ok with that but if it were Legal, they would then consider it a good thing. Stop letting laws define what is right and what is wrong.Especially when marijuana was made illegal for completely oblivious reasons.

[Goronmon]

But I'm defining MJ as right or wrong, I'm just saying it's illegal.Yeah, but so is underage drinking, and how many people actually waiting until they were 21 to have their first taste of alcohol?

[Deadend]

Especially when marijuana was made illegal for completely oblivious reasons.

Which ones?

[Bone]

I really don’t understand why anyone does any of this stuff; I’ll stick with video games. The worst that’ll happen is bad eyesight as long as you still get exercise, and after 20 years of playing them I’ve still got 20/20 vision. I guess there's also the heightened ability to kill that I gain from playing so many murder simulators, but that's more of a life-tool than a health ailment. :pTry back problems, repetitive stress injuries, etc. Life- it'll kill ya. I am just trying to enjoy it the best way I know how.

[The_Darr]

Especially when marijuana was made illegal for completely oblivious reasons.

Yes, if anyone who is anti-weed would actually research how the laws came to be they might sing a different tune. Racism for the win!

[iHap]

Yeah, but so is underage drinking, and how many people actually waiting until they were 21 to have their first taste of alcohol?

Ninja Edit btw.

I'm waiting to be 21 for my first taste of alcohol. A lot of people wait. I've had several times when I was offered sex, drugs, alcohol. But I decline, because, I'm not a stupid fuck.

[Dirty Harry]

Which ones?

Well back in the 40's when the great cake depression came about AMURIKKKA, US OF A decided that they needed to stop the flow of cake eating, so they decided to make marijuana use illegal for black jazz artists and mexicanos so they could stop the massive cake comsumption durring that depression era.

[Bone]

Ninja Edit btw.

I'm waiting to be 21 for my first taste of alcohol. A lot of people wait. I've had several times when I was offered sex, drugs, alcohol. But I decline, because, I'm not a stupid fuck.No, but you are an arrogant one if you assume that everyone who doesn't wait is stupid. There is a world of experience out there and whether you wait or not, it's all a different path to the same end.

[mr. murphy]

Ninja Edit btw.

I'm waiting to be 21 for my first taste of alcohol. A lot of people wait. I've had several times when I was offered sex, drugs, alcohol. But I decline, because, I'm not a stupid fuck.

I would have to disagree. ;)

Kidding, that's cool. I waited until I was 18 and moved out of my parents house for all three, but no way was I gonna wait until 21. At 18 I'm an adult, I can buy a gun and I can die for my country - I can Goddamn drink if I want to.

[torrefaction]

Ninja Edit btw.

I'm waiting to be 21 for my first taste of alcohol. A lot of people wait. I've had several times when I was offered sex, drugs, alcohol. But I decline, because, I'm not a stupid fuck.

Congratulations. You are a judgemental fool.

Also:You will wake up when your 40 one day, wonder what you wasted your life doing, and wonder why you didn't take more chances.

I pity you.

[iHap]

No, but you are an arrogant one if you assume that everyone who doesn't wait is stupid. There is a world of experience out there and whether you wait or not, it's all a different path to the same end.

Not necessarily, I don't plan on getting drunk (Maybe once to see my limit), or do any type of drugs (Out of medical reasons), Or have sex out side of marriage. Yes I'm a big phat conservative, but still, having a healthy mindset is something everyone should have, honestly.

[Wackman3000]

Ninja Edit btw.

I'm waiting to be 21 for my first taste of alcohol. A lot of people wait. I've had several times when I was offered sex, drugs, alcohol. But I decline, because, I'm not a stupid fuck.

You declined sex because you weren't an adult? Yes, you are a stupid fuck.

[Oxonian]

I take it you've never smoked, or seen someone smoke, a bong? Hack, cough, choke!
Never smoked a bong. Have seen someone smoke out of a makeshift bong manufactured from a used 2-liter Coke bottle. He seemed to believe it allowed him to hold his breath longer.

I mean, think about it, if it comes out of the ground it's probably there for the natural world to make use of, but all the un-natural chemicals cigarette companies use to make there processes more efficient, that's the shit that kills.
Few ideologies drive me up the wall as much as this fetishization of "natural." The natural world will kill you dead as a doornail. Polychorinated dibenzodioxins, a class of compounds that includes such lovely dessert toppings as Agent Orange, are produced by natural combustion and geothermal activity. Nicotine, which is naturally occurring in tobacco, can be fatal on skin contact in doses as low as 40 mg. One of the most common causes of cancer in the U.S. is viral infection. Tigers are naturally occurring.

The past couple of billion years have seen lifeforms struggling desperately to kill each other off. Plants, in particular, produce a wide variety of poisons to destroy their foes. Unsurprisingly, that shit is not good for you.

In short, nature is not a conscious entity. If it were, it probably would want to kill you. Go drink some hemlock if you don't believe me.

@torre: I'm not so enamored of the study you cited. Looking at people who already have cancer and then trying to determine how many of them smoked marijuana, and for how long, strikes me as some pretty flawed methodology. There are a lot of causes of cancer, and just because the incidence of marijuana use among cancer patients isn't significantly higher than in the general population doesn't necessarily prove a lot. In particular, you're asking people who already have cancer to remember how much pot they smoked 20 years ago. A longitudinal study tracking how much marijuana people consume, then seeing how much cancer they get, seems like a much more reliable method.

[mr. murphy]

Not necessarily, I don't plan on getting drunk (Maybe once to see my limit), or do any type of drugs (Out of medical reasons), Or have sex out side of marriage. Yes I'm a big phat conservative, but still, having a healthy mindset is something everyone should have, honestly.

I've always wondered about the very real possibility that you and your future wife hook up on your honeymoon and are completely incompatible. I know I've had partners where the differences in our sexual styles/amounts/what-have-you have been the reason we broke up. I guess physical connection just isn't an important part of a marraige to some people? (I'm not baiting you with that statement, I've just wondered about this my whole life. It seems like when you're getting ready to make a lifetime commitment to somebody you'd want to know if you fit together first.)

This has seriously confused me my whole life. Why is it important to wait for marriage? What does it accomplish? Sex is a human need, and an important one, and if you marry a chick who doesn't do it for you in the sack, that's going to cause either an unhappy marriage or cheating or divorce down the road, none of which are a good thing in anyones eyes.

[LongStepMantis]

All this thread proves is that a lot of people think their personal views on all of this are somehow "better" than others.

So let me try!
I used to smoke pot, but none of my stoner friends have ever died or even become sick from doing it. I know a couple guys who have died from drinking, or killed others. So by my comparison Pot>Alcohol.

Oh wait, alcohol's legal, so it must be better...right?...right...awwww. ;)

[iHap]

I've always wondered about the very real possibility that you and your future wife hook up on your honeymoon and are completely incompatible. I know I've had partners where the differences in our sexual styles/amounts/what-have-you have been the reason we broke up. I guess physical connection just isn't an important part of a marraige to some people? (I'm not baiting you with that statement, I've just wondered about this my whole life. It seems like when you're getting ready to make a lifetime commitment to somebody you'd want to know if you fit together first.)

You do bring a pretty good argument to the table, I do think about that from time to time, but then again I believe in the whole true love crap so I guess it doesn't bother me. I'm up for any type of sex really. So it adds to me not worrying.

[Dirty Harry]

Ive not seen anyone i know die from marijuana use but i have seen family and friends die from the drink and die from tabacco.

[Rifter]

Congratulations. You are a judgemental fool.

Also:You will wake up when your 40 one day, wonder what you wasted your life doing, and wonder why you didn't take more chances.

I pity you.

Damn. I have never done drugs. I admit, I TRIED alchohol before I was 21... though, I never had enough to equal one drink, or even get buzzed. Sex, i have to admit, I tried before marriage...

You really are coming off as a judgemental fool here. Contrary to what is becoming popular belief, morals are not a BAD thing.

[LongStepMantis]

You do bring a pretty good argument to the table, I do think about that from time to time, but then again I believe in the whole true love crap so I guess it doesn't bother me. I'm up for any type of sex really. So it adds to me not worrying.

Well, if you're waiting to have it, of course any kind is ok with you.
You are a man I take it? we likes us some sex. :D

Are you wrong for choosing to do it that way? Nope.
But are we wrong for doing it a different way? Nope.
So I guess that's that.

[mr. murphy]

You do bring a pretty good argument to the table, I do think about that from time to time, but then again I believe in the whole true love crap so I guess it doesn't bother me. I'm up for any type of sex really. So it adds to me not worrying.

I wish you luck (I truly do!) but one of the things you'll see on the other side of sex is that it is a much more complicated endeavor than you might think! Nowadays I see it as a lot like being in a band - you can be the best musician in the world on your own in your room, but that doesn't mean you work well with every other artist. Likewise, you might be a bluegrass musician and end up in a metal band for the rest of your life!

But I am a romantic at heart, so I will choose to believe that if you meet someone you connect with on every other level, you guys will connect in the sack as well. Even tho my life has taught me otherwise. :(

[Bone]

You really are coming off as a judgemental fool here. Contrary to what is becoming popular belief, morals are not a BAD thing.No, they're great for you to have, but once you start telling people that your morals are what THEY should live by, you've lost your standing.

You may not believe that I have really good morals, but I do. They are different from yours, sure. But I believe in treating people with respect, telling the truth, and generally doing the right thing. Also, part of my morals allow me to buck the system when I feel like my lifestyle should not be criminalized.

[The_Darr]

Its a complete waste of time to attach yourself to someone for extended periods of time without knowing them in and out (pun was and wasn't intended).

I have always followed the law for the most part--never had a ticket, never been "busted", never been to any type of jail, and have never really had any bad encounters with the law side of things. Following laws with no basis other than racism and irrational fears is an archaic ideal that I just can't follow being as young and "ignorant" as I am. If what I do in my free time to myself when it doesn't harm anyone is considered as bad as it is, I just ignore those folks spouting such non-critical (and not THEIR) views they've heard or read from someone else and don't invite them over. I wish more people would think for themselves instead of listen to and/or regurgitate whatever someone else tells them. Go Skepticism!

[CptTripps]

How about people just stop smoking things?

This is indeed preachy.


I really don’t understand why anyone does any of this stuff; I’ll stick with video games. The worst that’ll happen is bad eyesight as long as you still get exercise, and after 20 years of playing them I’ve still got 20/20 vision. I guess there's also the heightened ability to kill that I gain from playing so many murder simulators, but that's more of a life-tool than a health ailment. :p

You don't have to understand.

[Dirty Harry]

I wish you luck (I truly do!) but one of the things you'll see on the other side of sex is that it is a much more complicated endeavor than you might think! Nowadays I see it as a lot like being in a band - you can be the best musician in the world on your own in your room, but that doesn't mean you work well with every other artist. Likewise, you might be a bluegrass musician and end up in a metal band for the rest of your life!

But I am a romantic at heart, so I will choose to believe that if you meet someone you connect with on every other level, you guys will connect in the sack as well. Even tho my life has taught me otherwise. :(

Yeah i have this concern with this female i have been courting lately, we connect on every level but when we attempted to do the deed the other day things just werent working (positions, condoms, feared pregnacy with TWO slipped condoms, not enough lube) other than that, we enjoy every other sexual act but the act itself was not successful but it was the first time so i figure i will give it another shot and wut not.

[Rifter]

This has seriously confused me my whole life. Why is it important to wait for marriage? What does it accomplish? Sex is a human need, and an important one, and if you marry a chick who doesn't do it for you in the sack, that's going to cause either an unhappy marriage or cheating or divorce down the road, none of which are a good thing in anyones eyes.

Morals trancend what you want. Sex isn't a need, it is a desire. I have NEVER heard of anyone dying, because of lack of sex. ;-) The importance of waiting until marriage, from a moral standpoint, helps to prevent the spread of diseases. It also gives you a deeper connection (assuming she is a virgin too), in that you have both denied something that you would LIKE to do... to give it to someone special...

And, lets face it, if they are both virgins... they probably won't KNOW any better, either... so sexual compatiblity would be easier. Aslo, again, with the both virgins area... they develop their sexuality together, which probably makes them ultimately, more compatible with each other, than anyone else.

[mr. murphy]

Yeah i have this concern with this female i have been courting lately, we connect on every level but when we attempted to do the deed the other day things just werent working (positions, condoms, feared pregnacy with TWO slipped condoms, not enough lube) other than that, we enjoy every other sexual act but the act itself was not successful but it was the first time so i figure i will give it another shot and wut not.

Dude, my first time, when we were done, and we realized the condom had broke, EVEN THO she was on the pill, she started sobbing in my arms. Hysterically crying out of fear of pregnancy. Bad first time stories are ten times more common than good ones.

Sex takes practice! Keep up the hard work! ;)

[iHap]

No, they're great for you to have, but once you start telling people that your morals are what THEY should live by, you've lost your standing.

You may not believe that I have really good morals, but I do. They are different from yours, sure. But I believe in treating people with respect, telling the truth, and generally doing the right thing. Also, part of my morals allow me to buck the system when I feel like my lifestyle should not be criminalized.

Sorry if I came out that way. I just find it myself in shock and aw when I ( for extremist sake so we can agree on something) someone go shoot up a school, or blow up a bus. Those kinds of people may think it's cool and fun, but there are others criminalize them.

[Bone]

Sorry if I came out that way. I just find it myself in shock and aw when I ( for extremist sake so we can agree on something) someone go shoot up a school, or blow up a bus. Those kinds of people may think it's cool and fun, but there are others criminalize them.Right, well then we agree on the same thing basically. My morals include not hurting other people, whether I consider hurting people fun or not (I don't).

But I can't see how someone can attack my morals for doing something that harms nobody but myself (and even that is still open for debate). Especially when attacking someone's morals is itself an immoral act, in my opinion!

[mr. murphy]

Morals trancend what you want. Sex isn't a need, it is a desire. I have NEVER heard of anyone dying, because of lack of sex. ;-) The importance of waiting until marriage, from a moral standpoint, helps to prevent the spread of diseases. It also gives you a deeper connection (assuming she is a virgin too), in that you have both denied something that you would LIKE to do... to give it to someone special...

Not having good sex might not kill you in the immediate sense, but it makes you live a shorter life, be unhappier, and be more stressed and angry and unpleasant to all of us.

And you both won't be virgins forever. What happens when you realize there's good sex out there, and that you'll never have it? You've had just enough of a taste to know what you're missing... Ever wonder why divorce is so high, why sex stores where married men can go suck each other off do so well? Ever wonder why prostitution is the oldest profession?

[Goronmon]

Yes I'm a big phat conservative, but still, having a healthy mindset is something everyone should have, honestly.So, drinking before you are 21 is unhealthy, but drinking after 21 is healthy? Or, having sex out of marriage is unhealthy, but having sex after marriage is healthy?

I don't think "healthy" was the word you were looking for there.

[Dirty Harry]

Dude, my first time, when we were done, and we realized the condom had broke, EVEN THO she was on the pill, she started sobbing in my arms. Hysterically crying out of fear of pregnancy. Bad first time stories are ten times more common than good ones.

Sex takes practice! Keep up the hard work! ;)

Yeah im not worried, the condoms slipping off were a bit scary though, never had that happen to me before :s. Anywho, im more than commited to make this work between me and here, we just gotta find the right groove that works for us. (lol man when the condom slipped for the second time, the thoughts of babies made me unable to stand at attention, man what a scary thought!).

[Durka-Dan]

No I was actually just suggesting that you should hold your breath till you pass out therefore stopping you from being a preachy SOB and let the rest of us get back to the topic at hand. Imagine if people wandered around the WoW board telling people they are wasting their lives, just because you find abhorrent it gives you no right to come and preach at me about it.

I guess yellowman is more than just a clever name.

[IrishWhiskey]

I'm waiting to be 21 for my first taste of alcohol. A lot of people wait. I've had several times when I was offered sex, drugs, alcohol. But I decline, because, I'm not a stupid fuck.Damn. I have never done drugs. I admit, I TRIED alchohol before I was 21... though, I never had enough to equal one drink, or even get buzzed. Sex, i have to admit, I tried before marriage...

Contrary to what is becoming popular belief, morals are not a BAD thing.Look if you guys want to abstain from those things thats fine. Out of all the things in my life I regret, none of those would be on there, but whatever, to each their own. However I think your conception that abstinence is inherently moral is not shared by everyone. And that things like this bogus survey SuicideKing posted come from a belief that because those values are "moral" anyone who chooses differently is "immoral" and so its okay to lie or condem those who do. Things like cocaine and meth have obvious arguments for why they are prohibited and a dumb idea, but the same isn't true of pot, sex and beer. And unless you do have an objective argument, don't expect others to acknowledge your superior morality.


I guess yellowman is more than just a clever name.Hey c'mon now, there's no need to bring racism into this.

[Oxonian]

My morals include not hurting other people, whether I consider hurting people fun or not (I don't).
It makes me sad when people use marijuana. So they are hurting me. Does that mean using marijuana is immoral?

[mr. murphy]

Yeah im not worried, the condoms slipping off were a bit scary though, never had that happen to me before :s. Anywho, im more than commited to make this work between me and here, we just gotta find the right groove that works for us. (lol man when the condom slipped for the second time, the thoughts of babies made me unable to stand at attention, man what a scary thought!).

Dude, the slippage, was it just the virgin seal-for-freshness? Like, the grip was so strung it pulled that fucker right off you?

Here's something that might sound obvious, but it actually took me a long time to figure out: take a little control. Hold her with as much of your arms as possible, and gently move her body into the right angles that you need. Girls want to let go and be held, it's not a control thing, it's a safety thing, for them. So if it doesn't feel right, move her (gently!) until it does, using that time for kissing and other stuff.

Okay, that's all the advice I'm gonna give... as a matter of fact, I think I need to leave EvAv or I won't get any work done today.

[Dirty Harry]

It makes me sad when people use marijuana. So they are hurting me. Does that mean using marijuana is immoral?

WHO IS THIS? DO I KNOW YOU? *hangs up*

[Goronmon]

It makes me sad when people use marijuana. So they are hurting me. Does that mean using marijuana is immoral?You know what makes me sad? Your posts.Oooh, burn.

[the soUL TRAder]

Not necessarily, I don't plan on getting drunk (Maybe once to see my limit), or do any type of drugs (Out of medical reasons), Or have sex out side of marriage. Yes I'm a big phat conservative, but still, having a healthy mindset is something everyone should have, honestly.

Hey Titus, what makes you an idiot isn't because you preferred not to partake in those opportunities, or that you are probably going to keep the impurities in your system to a minimum in the future, (of course, how much fast food do you eat?), but to waste time judging the people who partook is pathetic, but than, to judge them as stupid fucks, that's just precious, cupcake.

Hey man, enjoy Lamesville, make sure you have a great retirement plan and full medical.

As for me, I think I'll go write Penthouse about that one night in Vegas snorting coke off two naked hotties.

[Dirty Harry]

Dude, the slippage, was it just the virgin seal-for-freshness? Like, the grip was so strung it pulled that fucker right off you?

Here's something that might sound obvious, but it actually took me a long time to figure out: take a little control. Hold her with as much of your arms as possible, and gently move her body into the right angles that you need. Girls want to let go and be held, it's not a control thing, it's a safety thing, for them. So if it doesn't feel right, move her (gently!) until it does, using that time for kissing and other stuff.

Okay, that's all the advice I'm gonna give... as a matter of fact, I think I need to leave EvAv or I won't get any work done today.

Eh she aint no virgin, but eh i think it was a combo of no lube and tight twat. Plus when i withdrew to take a breather, i didnt properly grip yon condom and it slid off yon weiner and thus yon karrack was smote'd.

[LongStepMantis]

All I can say is that where I live, you have 3 distinct, large groups of "users".

Pot smokers - Deadheads, Hippies, and just plain old guys who like to get stoned. Lots of these, especially since it's a college town. Don't bother anyone, don't hurt anyone, worst thing they do is buy all of the cupcakes at the store, leaving none for the rest of us.

Drinkers - Frat guys, and everyone else. Most of them play nice, get drunk, go home. You get the usual drunk fights, vandalism, and the occasional guy who walks up to you on the street and wants to fight you, even though you've never seen him before. They bother people, make noise, and break shit, but those are a minority, even here.

Meth Heads - Could be anyone, and they will kill and rob you if they think you have $5 on you. No redeeming qualities, they lie, cheat, steal, scam, mug, anything it takes to get that crystal. If I could get away with it, I'd personally kill any meth users I came across. We're better off without them, and no sane person could argue that point.

So here at least, it goes Pot smokers > Drinkers > Methers.
I've been jumped by drunks, robbed by meth heads, and have never had a single problem with a stoner. So I'll take weed smokers over drinkers and the rest any day.

[iHap]

Hey Titus, what makes you an idiot isn't because you preferred not to partake in those opportunities, or that you are probably going to keep the impurities in your system to a minimum in the future, (of course, how much fast food do you eat?), but to waste time judging the people who partook is pathetic, but than, to judge them as stupid fucks, that's just precious, cupcake.

Hey man, enjoy Lamesville, make sure you have a great retirement plan and full medical.

As for me, I think I'll go write Penthouse about that one night in Vegas snorting coke off two naked hotties.

Ok, You do that. Watch out for them herpes.

[Oxonian]

Hey Titus, what makes you an idiot isn't because you preferred not to partake in those opportunities, or that you are probably going to keep the impurities in your system to a minimum in the future, (of course, how much fast food do you eat?), but to waste time judging the people who partook is pathetic, but than, to judge them as stupid fucks, that's just precious, cupcake.

Hey man, enjoy Lamesville, make sure you have a great retirement plan and full medical.
Translation:

"HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT YOU DON'T APPROVE OF ME OR MY CHOICES! ANYONE WHO EVER EXPRESSES OR EVEN SECRETLY HOLDS A NEGATIVE OPINION ABOUT ANYONE ELSE IS WORSE THAN HITLER!"

[Bone]

It makes me sad when people use marijuana. So they are hurting me. Does that mean using marijuana is immoral?Nice try! But it's not my problem you feel bad. That's entirely within your control ;)

[Bone]

Translation:

"HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT YOU DON'T APPROVE OF ME OR MY CHOICES! ANYONE WHO EVER EXPRESSES OR EVEN SECRETLY HOLDS A NEGATIVE OPINION ABOUT ANYONE ELSE IS WORSE THAN HITLER!"Really Ox, for such a logical guy, you really are going off the rails today.

[iHap]

Really Ox, for such a logical guy, you really are going off the rails today.

I have to agree, but it made me laugh.

This forum requires that you wait 42 seconds between posts. Please try again in 6 seconds.

[Goronmon]

Really Ox, for such a logical guy, you really are going off the rails today.If only there existed a substance to mellow one out when they fell victim to such moods.

[Oxonian]

Nice try! But it's not my problem you feel bad. That's entirely within your control ;)
Really? I could choose not to care? I'm not so certain that people freely choose their emotional reactions. Does that mean that, if I just chose to do so, I could fall in love with a particular girl? Or that, if I simply chose not to be bothered by my poor health, I would no longer care that I am unable to do many physical activities?

But let's say you're right and people are capable of choosing what they do and do not care about. If I cut off your arm, I could say, "Oh, stop whining. You are choosing to care about not having an arm anymore. It's not my problem you feel bad."

[the soUL TRAder]

Translation:

"HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT YOU DON'T APPROVE OF ME OR MY CHOICES! ANYONE WHO EVER EXPRESSES OR EVEN SECRETLY HOLDS A NEGATIVE OPINION ABOUT ANYONE ELSE IS WORSE THAN HITLER!"

I conquer:
Judgementalism is the worst evil man can do to another man and completely unproductive.

OMG! I thought I was the only one.:rolleyes:

[Bone]

Really? I could choose not to care? I'm not so certain that people freely choose their emotional reactions.
You absolutely have it within your power not to be affected by my actions, when those actions don't impact you.

Does that mean that, if I just chose to do so, I could fall in love with a particular girl?No, but you could make yourself sleep with her. Love is a bit more complex than a base emotional response, I think.

Or that, if I simply chose not to be bothered by my poor health, I would no longer care that I am unable to do many physical activities?Sure, if you acknowledge that your poor choices led you to where you are today, then you should accept it and not be sad.


But let's say you're right and people are capable of choosing what they do and do not care about. If I cut off your arm, I could say, "Oh, stop whining. You are choosing to care about not having an arm anymore. It's not my problem you feel bad."Again, the argument only applied to when one's actions don't affect the other.

Really, you're just being facetious, or just a dick. But, I don't have to let it bother me.

[The_Darr]

But let's say you're right and people are capable of choosing what they do and do not care about. If I cut off your arm, I could say, "Oh, stop whining. You are choosing to care about not having an arm anymore. It's not my problem you feel bad."

Hey, it almost always works for me--its actually quite easy to have something grow on you that you once felt distaste for, but hey, be weak-minded and irrationally controlled by your emotions all you want. I consider having control of your emotions is part of fitting in with "civilized society".

I also love all the fundamentalist/extremist comparisons between smoking pot and people's arms being cut off. Totally in the same league...

[Goronmon]

If I cut off your arm, I could say, "Oh, stop whining. You are choosing to care about not having an arm anymore. It's not my problem you feel bad."It's more like you complaining that someone else cut their own arm off...

[Oxonian]

Sure, if you acknowledge that your poor choices led you to where you are today, then you should accept it and not be sad.
What, praytell, were the "poor choices" that led me to where I am today? I'm genuinely curious. If you wouldn't mind, I'd also like you to explain why acknowledging those allegedly poor choices would someone dispell my sadness. I've tried going to small children who have skinned their knees and saying, "It's your own stupid fault for running around like a retard," but oddly they did not seem to become noticeably happier.

Again, the argument only applied to when one's actions don't affect the other.
But you've assumed what I've asked you to prove. Someone smokes marijuana; this causes me to become sad. You claim, "But his smoking marijuana did not affect you." I just told you it makes me sad. Is that not an effect? Or are you simply claiming I lied?

[Bone]

What, praytell, were the "poor choices" that led me to where I am today? I'm genuinely curious. If you wouldn't mind, I'd also like you to explain why acknowledging those allegedly poor choices would someone dispell my sadness. I've tried going to small children who have skinned their knees and saying, "It's your own stupid fault for running around like a retard," but oddly they did not seem to become noticeably happier.You mentioned that if you had poor health, should you be sad about your lack of physical activity. Please pay attention to your own posts before you go batshit on me. I was responding to your own hypothetical situation. So yes, if you allow yourself to be unhealthy (hypothetically) then being sad about it is wasting your time. Do something about it or accept it.

EDIT: this assumes the poor health is from inactivity or some other choice. Clearly if your poor health is not from your own choices, it's a different situation. Still, I would ask what the benefit of being sad is. Finding the positives feels a lot more healthy to me.


But you've assumed what I've asked you to prove. Someone smokes marijuana; this causes me to become sad. You claim, "But his smoking marijuana did not affect you." I just told you it makes me sad. Is that not an effect? Or are you simply claiming I lied?It didn't affect you physically, that's clear enough. It only impacted your psyche because you apparently are weak minded enough to let other people dictate your emotions. As much as we've disagreed on this forum, I still respected you enough to think you were in control of your own emotions. I guess I gave you too much credit.

[NSFW]

I call bullshit.

[Oxonian]

You mentioned that if you had poor health, should you be sad about your lack of physical activity. Please pay attention to your own posts before you go batshit on me. I was responding to your own hypothetical situation. So yes, if you allow yourself to be unhealthy (hypothetically) then being sad about it is wasting your time. Do something about it or accept it.
Perhaps you misunderstand. I was not offering a hypothetical situation. I really do have poor health. As a consequence of my several ailments, I cannot engage in a number of physical activities. Sadly, none of my ailments can be cured or ameliorated by changing my diet, exercising, or changing any other of my life activities. I do take a variety of medications to treat my diseases, but those medications work imperfectly and have unpleasant effects of their own. So again I reiterate: please explain to me which "poor choices" have led me to this state of affairs. Then, you can come down with me to the pediatric cancer ward and we can explain to all the sick kids there why their problems are a result of their poor choices and why acknowledging that fact should make them not feel sad anymore.

It didn't affect you physically, that's clear enough. It only impacted your psyche because you apparently are weak minded enough to let other people dictate your emotions. As much as we've disagreed on this forum, I still respected you enough to think you were in control of your own emotions. I guess I gave you too much credit.
I doubt you really thought that. After all, you called me "facetious" and a "dick" earlier. What were those words if not deliberate insults designed to make me feel bad? And if you thought you could make me feel bad by insulting me, you must have thought you had some power over my emotions.

[the soUL TRAder]

Few ideologies drive me up the wall as much as this fetishization of "natural." The natural world will kill you dead as a doornail. Polychorinated dibenzodioxins, a class of compounds that includes such lovely dessert toppings as Agent Orange, are produced by natural combustion and geothermal activity. Nicotine, which is naturally occurring in tobacco, can be fatal on skin contact in doses as low as 40 mg. One of the most common causes of cancer in the U.S. is viral infection. Tigers are naturally occurring.

The past couple of billion years have seen lifeforms struggling desperately to kill each other off. Plants, in particular, produce a wide variety of poisons to destroy their foes. Unsurprisingly, that shit is not good for you.

In short, nature is not a conscious entity. If it were, it probably would want to kill you. Go drink some hemlock if you don't believe me.


Boy, not only do you believe in being a judgmental prick, you're "quick to judgement" , too.
I said:
"if it comes out of the ground it's probably there for the natural world to make use of"

No where did I imply that the natural world wouldn't use to it's detriment. My point was, that because it's natural, our bodies would more likely have a natural defense mechanism to warn us of the danger; on the other hand, the "man-made chemicals" used in cigarette processing is probably able to do more damage un-noticed by our natural immunities.

Maybe, the only good use of weed is using the hemp for raw materials, but we should have the freedom to let our bodies tell us so, not others.

[Soap]

I say most of you angry fucks need to eat more pot brownies.

[Bone]

Perhaps you misunderstand. I was not offering a hypothetical situation. I really do have poor health. As a consequence of my several ailments, I cannot engage in a number of physical activities. Sadly, none of my ailments can be cured or ameliorated by changing my diet, exercising, or changing any other of my life activities. I do take a variety of medications to treat my diseases, but those medications work imperfectly and have unpleasant effects of their own. So again I reiterate: please explain to me which "poor choices" have led me to this state of affairs. Then, you can come down with me to the pediatric cancer ward and we can explain to all the sick kids there why their problems are a result of their poor choices and why acknowledging that fact should make them not feel sad anymore.
I edited myself to be clear. Of course I don't think someone with a disease made a poor choice. You are so ready to jump on anything I say, you actually assumed I was that callous? Jesus.

But still, I am a believer in positive thought. Someone with cancer who has a positive outlook will enjoy their life far more than someone who dwells on it. I'm pretty sure doctors have confirmed this.


I doubt you really thought that. After all, you called me "facetious" and a "dick" earlier. What were those words if not deliberate insults designed to make me feel bad? And if you thought you could make me feel bad by insulting me, you must have thought you had some power over my emotions.Ah, but you insinuated that I did have power over your emotions, and it was as simple as lighting a spliff.

But no, I can simultaneously respect you as a human (and respect your intelligence) while also thinking you're being facetious and acting like a dick. I personally think you dislike me and at this point are arguing for that sake instead of the topic itself.

[donkeydrop]

So, you just wanted to point out you were "above" smoking? Great, thanks for your contribution to the thread.

No need to be so sensitive, some people enjoy life just fine without smoking. Just don't get f'd up and hurt someone other than yourself and we'll all get along fine.

[Deadend]

Hey, I could use a high horse too.

[Oxonian]

Of course I don't think someone with a disease made a poor choice. You are so ready to jump on anything I say, you actually assumed I was that callous? Jesus.
I was pretty astonished, so I re-read your post several times to be certain that you really meant to suggest I was sick because of my poor choices. You seemed to be pretty clearly saying exactly that, however. Moreover, your second post again referred to me "allow [my]self to be unhealthy."

Someone with cancer who has a positive outlook will enjoy their life far more than someone who dwells on it.
That's true by definition. And I agree that trying not to dwell on one's misfortune tends to improve survival rates and other objective health factors. But a person's optimism or pessimism is, at best, only partly within his control. People afflicted with the mental illness of depression aren't choosing to be unhappy. My girlfriend's mother, who is an amputee, tries very hard to focus on the good things in her life, but she can't simply shrug off her regret and humiliation about all of the indignities she must suffer.

And this principle extends far beyond mere physical pain and incapacitation. When I read a newspaper article about some atrocity in a far corner of the world, I am sad. I really doubt I could simply say, "Hey, why should I care about torture and murder inflicted on other people?" My empathy is an essential part of my humanity, and I could no more choose to eradicate it than I could choose to grow a tail.

Ah, but you insinuated that I did have power over your emotions, and it was as simple as lighting a spliff.
So, by your logic, if it's easy to hurt another person's feelings, that makes it OK?

I personally think you dislike me and at this point are arguing for that sake instead of the topic itself.
It's not so much that I dislike you as that you frequently seem to give voice to a particular irritation of mine: the insipid and puerile belief that there's a clear demarcation between actions that injure others and purely self-concerned actions. "What I do is none of your business as long as it doesn't affect you" is a superficially appealing position, but a little thought should reveal that it makes an unsustainable distinction. "Injure" is a very poorly defined term. You don't want to limit it to physical harms, because otherwise it would be OK for me to call your mother and falsely tell her you were dead. Moreover, as you point out, one's psychological state can have physical effects: if you repeatedly insult me and make me feel bad about myself, my resultant depression will likely cause me a number of medical problems.

Even actions you take solely to affect yourself still have ripple effects on others. Suicide, for example, is a terrible thing: the suicider's loved ones will be wracked with psychic pain and will always question whether they were at fault somehow. A person who descends into drug or alcohol addiction causes his family members great pain, such that it's not uncommon for them to say they would give up limbs or even their lives to persuade the addict to get treatment. Can we really say that those friends and family members "aren't affected"? What kind of a ridiculous definition of "affected" are we using here?

If you want to argue that there exists some sphere of action within which a person must be permitted free hand without regard to the impact it might have on others, fine. If you want to say that I have no right to dictate your behavior, OK. You might even claim that I am not permitted to [I]express an opinion about your actions. But don't tell me that what you do doesn't have any affect on me and then try to justify it by invoking increasingly strained definitions of "affect."

[Dr. Douche Nozzle]

god damn yall, shut the fuck up and smoke a bowl....jeez...then we would only be bitching about who's gonna go get the taco bell! lol

[Goronmon]

god damn yall, shut the fuck up and smoke a bowl....jeez...then we would only be bitching about who's gonna go get the taco bell! lolAfter reading this post I would like to rescind any previous statements I may have made claiming marijuana use has no long-term detrimental affects.

[Kelegacy]

Easy solution: put it in brownies. Or liquify it and use it as an enema.

But yeah. Even if true, you don't smoke a pack of joints a day. At least, most people don't. And last I knew, people didn't stick filters on their joints. That could be part of the "problem".

[mr. murphy]

Easy solution: put it in brownies. Or liquify it and use it as an enema.

But yeah. Even if true, you don't smoke a pack of joints a day. At least, most people don't. And last I knew, people didn't stick filters on their joints. That could be part of the "problem".

You know what we do? This saves you from having a roach, and saves you from burning your fingers, as well as accidentally eating weed: when you roll the joint, take a half inch wide by 2-3 inches long strip of paper or cardboard (a piece of the flap off the pack of papers works well) and roll it into the joint on one end. It's not a "filter", but it is a nice little end to your joint.

[EternalGamer]

After reading this post I would like to rescind any previous statements I may have made claiming marijuana use has no long-term detrimental affects.

Personally, I found his post about as insightful as Oxonian's incredibly forced attempts at deconstructing the notion of "harm." He knew very well what was meant by the phrasing and it certainly didn't call for him to pick a fight and invoke the useless casuistry that followed.

[NationalKato]

when you roll the joint, take a half inch wide by 2-3 inches long strip of paper or cardboard (a piece of the flap off the pack of papers works well) and roll it into the joint on one end. It's not a "filter", but it is a nice little end to your joint.

That's how you do it in Amsterdam when rolling a Dutch cone, too.

[mr. murphy]

That's how you do it in Amsterdam when rolling a Dutch cone, too.

I've never tried one of those cone dealies. Is that the same as a "cyclone" my little bro talks about? Basically a paper bowl to smoke out of, shaped like a small cone?

My buddies just got back from Amsterdammery, I wish I had known there were EvAvers over there, I would have asked for some suggested tourist locations! I would have gone with them, but I just got this job and I want to keep it.

[Bone]

I was pretty astonished, so I re-read your post several times to be certain that you really meant to suggest I was sick because of my poor choices. You seemed to be pretty clearly saying exactly that, however. Moreover, your second post again referred to me "allow[ing] [my]self to be unhealthy."Again, I was operating under a hypothetical, of someone who had, say, gotten fat. I had no idea about your medical issues or I would have understood where you were coming from.


So, by your logic, if it's easy to hurt another person's feelings, that makes it OK?No, in fact I believe the opposite. Saying you are "sad" because of my actions (besides being facetious) is not enough to consider it "harm". Otherwise, I could be sad that you don't give me money. Now, give me money or you are harming me.


It's not so much that I dislike you as that you frequently seem to give voice to a particular irritation of mine:So you are admitting that you have attributed a certain type of tone to my posts, and that you dislike them. That's close enough for me. Honestly, you should stick to your arguments that contain your awe-inspiring logic, because this thread you've done nothing but misconstrue, misquote, obfuscate, and purposefully bait me and others without any logic. And when you do that you're no better than the rest of us Internet Fuckwads.


the insipid and puerile belief that there's a clear demarcation between actions that injure others and purely self-concerned actions. "What I do is none of your business as long as it doesn't affect you" is a superficially appealing position, but a little thought should reveal that it makes an unsustainable distinction."A little thought" is far less than what I've given this issue.


"Injure" is a very poorly defined term. You don't want to limit it to physical harms, because otherwise it would be OK for me to call your mother and falsely tell her you were dead. Moreover, as you point out, one's psychological state can have physical effects: if you repeatedly insult me and make me feel bad about myself, my resultant depression will likely cause me a number of medical problems.No, if I insult you enough to cause you depression, you are a pussy. Own your own life, stop blaming other people. It's within your power to rise above other people's insults. Now, if it's an abusive father or husband, sure, there are instances where someone in a close relationship can harm someone with words. But you can't apply that across the board- someone I meet on the street or the Internet has no power to reduce me to jelly unless I give it to them.


Even actions you take solely to affect yourself still have ripple effects on others. Suicide, for example, is a terrible thing: the suicider's loved ones will be wracked with psychic pain and will always question whether they were at fault somehow. A person who descends into drug or alcohol addiction causes his family members great pain, such that it's not uncommon for them to say they would give up limbs or even their lives to persuade the addict to get treatment. Can we really say that those friends and family members "aren't affected"? What kind of a ridiculous definition of "affected" are we using here?Again, first you compare pot smoking to cutting off someone's arm, now it's equal to suicide? You've done nothing but compare apples to atom bombs in this thread.

In the end, could I come down on you equally for rotting your brain with TV, or judge you for eating junk food?

You can have an opinion all you want, but I find if you force them on others and judge people based on your own morals, you will find yourself bitter and alone pretty quickly. And that should make you sad.

[torrefaction]

@torre: I'm not so enamored of the study you cited. Looking at people who already have cancer and then trying to determine how many of them smoked marijuana, and for how long, strikes me as some pretty flawed methodology. There are a lot of causes of cancer, and just because the incidence of marijuana use among cancer patients isn't significantly higher than in the general population doesn't necessarily prove a lot. In particular, you're asking people who already have cancer to remember how much pot they smoked 20 years ago. A longitudinal study tracking how much marijuana people consume, then seeing how much cancer they get, seems like a much more reliable method.

But...that's exactly how the study posted in the OP was done, except with a DRASTICALLY lower sampling rate.

The researchers interviewed 79 lung cancer patients and sought to identify the main risk factors for the disease, such as smoking, family history and occupation. The patients were questioned about alcohol and cannabis consumption.

Also, my study also tracked 1,000 people without cancer, unlike the linked study in the OP. Also, the study matched statistical evidence about the negative impact of cigarette smoking. It's not a perfect study, but it's much more based in science and much more likely to be realistic than the OP's study, which is flawed and just bad science.

The study I linked was also the largest of it's kind, so that says something for it as well. The conclusion is that THC kills off aging cells, preventing cancer from forming, despite the negative impact of smoke on the body.

[NationalKato]

I've never tried one of those cone dealies. Is that the same as a "cyclone" my little bro talks about? Basically a paper bowl to smoke out of, shaped like a small cone?


Basically, yes. And when you visit the coffee shops in the Netherlands, they have those paper filters on the counter for you to use.

[Nerv]

That's how you do it in Amsterdam when rolling a Dutch cone, too.

It's pretty standard over here to use a roach made of light card too (see here, nsfw if you like work for the man, narc (http://www.everyonedoesit.co.uk/cannabis_information/joint_rolling/rolling_rolling_a_joint.cfm)), fold it over 3 times at the end so you have a M shape in the middle, for added protection against plant material in your mouth.

[Oxonian]

Saying you are "sad" because of my actions (besides being facetious) is not enough to consider it "harm".
First, I'm not being facetious: I really am saddened by the knowledge that people consume marijuana. But leaving that aside, what does qualify as "harm"?

In the end, could I come down on you equally for rotting your brain with TV, or judge you for eating junk food?
Of course. Or you could equally condemn me for being judgmental, facetious, or a pussy. None of those things cause you any physical injury; indeed, they may not even cause you psychic distress. And yet you seem to be quite comfortable with condemning me for those failings. How is condemning someone for drug use any different?

But...that's exactly how the study posted in the OP was done, except with a DRASTICALLY lower sampling rate.
I didn't mean to suggest I liked the OP study.

[mr. murphy]

First, I'm not being facetious: I really am saddened by the knowledge that people consume marijuana. But leaving that aside, what does qualify as "harm"?

It makes me sad that it makes you sad.

Sadness may be true harm, but not when it's sadness over something like this. Comparing your inability to not be sad over marijuana use to your inability to not be sad when you read about world tragedy was pretty out-there, especially coming from you, Oxy.

[torrefaction]

I didn't mean to suggest I liked the OP study.

Well, then I can agree that the methodology isn't the best, but it's a far cry from flawed science either. Funny thing is to get a valid study, pot would probably have to be legal. For pot to be legal, we'd probably need a valid study.

[Bone]

First, I'm not being facetious: I really am saddened by the knowledge that people consume marijuana. But leaving that aside, what does qualify as "harm"?Wait, you really are saddened by that knowledge? Why does it make you sad? I think you should honestly get help if other people's largely innocuous actions are causing you so much distress.

I mean there is a whole world of pain out there, war, famine, and more, and people smoking pot makes you sad? How do you survive the average day?


Of course. Or you could equally condemn me for being judgmental, facetious, or a pussy. None of those things cause you any physical injury; indeed, they may not even cause you psychic distress. And yet you seem to be quite comfortable with condemning me for those failings. How is condemning someone for drug use any different?Well, to be honest, I didn't call you a pussy, again, read for the hypothetical. Because I certainly didn't take it literally that you are being harmed by my words- that was your facetious argument.

But yes, I did say you were being judgmental and facetious. I don't claim that that harms me, nor am I judging your moral fiber. You may be a nice, upstanding individual. I am only commenting on the methods you brought to the argument (which are so far removed from your normal logical arguments).

I've lost arguments to you before, in which your logic was unassailable. I respect that. But here, it seems like you just want to win the right to lord your superior morals over me. But honestly, are you perfect? Do you do everything right? Please give me a list of the few perfect people in the world who are above your reproach.

I just don't appreciate your twisting the argument when the fact is, my smoking pot has nothing to do with you, and cannot harm you. You simply choose to take offense at my lifestyle, and somehow that's my problem?

Oxonian, I'm done with this argument. Sincerely, have a good life, if you can do so without harming anyone.

[Oxonian]

Sadness may be true harm, but not when it's sadness over something like this.
I agree that the mere fact that I'm sad about marijuana use is not, in itself, enough to prohibit marijuana. It's not even enough to say that using marijuana is wrong. So on that, I'm with you.

But my point is not about the morality or lack thereof of marijuana use. It's about the silly notion that "harm" is the standard by which we judge morality. It's perfectly OK for me to, say, enjoy reality television, even if it breaks the heart of aesthetes who wish I had better taste. But it's not OK for me to tread on the aesthete's foot, even though he would probably say he'd rather have me step on his foot than enjoy Rock of Love.

There are some classes of harm which are immoral to inflict (e.g., physical injury) and some classes of harm which we may inflict with impunity (anguish over bad taste). There are even some classes of harm which we may inflict only under certain circumstances. For example, if I tell your wife you are cheating on her, that's terribly immoral... if it's untrue. But if it's true, then I'm not necessarily being immoral; indeed, it's arguably immoral to conceal your infidelity even though everyone would be happier.

Imagine if you had a very close friend or relative who had great admiration for you and was adamantly opposed to drug use. He or she would constantly brag, "I have complete confidence in mr. murphy's judgment. He'd never use marijuana." Then, one day, your misguided friend discovered that you had used marijuana. Your friend might feel deflated and saddened to learn that you had made (what he believed to be) a terrible mistake. Would you not feel the slightest element of guilt? Sure, maybe using marijuana isn't necessarily bad. But wouldn't you regret disappointing your friend? Don't you have the slightest moral obligation to avoid disappointing your friend? Or is he just a judgmental prick for having an opinion?

[torrefaction]

In my case, I'd be disappointed in my friend for judging my actions. Even more so if he respected me so much. I wouldn't feel guilty whatsoever. He can have his opinion, and wouldn't be a prick for having it, but I would feel he was being judgmental. I've judged people, and too harshly at times, and THOSE times I feel guilty. I feel judging people based on your opinions of right and wrong, outside of imposing your will on others, isn't right to do.

In addition, since most folks in the states practice it, it isn't the Christian thing to do. And I have a tendency to call people out on that. I like Christianity's attitude towards people in a LOT of ways. I just want people to walk the walk.

[digitalErich]

I would say that is more guilt for letting down your friend, not guilt for the actual deed, no matter what that may be.

I'm not a Christian and this troubled some people in my family in the past and while I felt bad that they were troubled I've never felt any guilt whatsoever about not being a Christian. It was more a disappointment that there was a gap in alignment on (what they considered to be) an important aspect of life.

Or a another example would be the son that doesn't go into the family business. Sure, he will feel bad for disappointing his parents, but that doesn't mean he feels bad about being a painter or journalist. Then again, I do know people that are that wrapped up in other people's perception of them, but anecdotally I can say these people are generally not happy.

[Bone]

I'm not a Christian and this troubled some people in my family in the past and while I felt bad that they were troubled I've never felt any guilt whatsoever about not being a Christian.

It was more a disappointment that there was a gap in alignment on what they considered to be an an important aspect of life.I know exactly what you mean. I was trying to explain Agnosticism to my father, and he seemed disappointed. He said it's better to believe "something" than nothing, even though he hasn't been to church in many years and never talks about his relationship with God. For me, I'd rather be "without knowledge" and continue to seek the truths of existence, than pin it down to a faith that has no answers other than "don't question it".

However, my dad didn't judge me, and I gave him a gentle smile and said it's OK, my belief system puts me at ease with not having an afterlife to look forward to. I don't feel guilty at all for not being exactly the person someone else expects me to be, even someone I love and care for as much as I do my dad.

[Grey]

I really am saddened by the knowledge that people consume marijuana.

uhm - why?

[The_Darr]

I attempt not to base my life on other people's illogical and unprecedented opinions on how I should live my life. Anyone who calls themselves my true friend wouldn't look up or down to me, they'd be their own person--as do I--and we all get along just fine. Its wasteful to always walk on egg shells throughout your life worrying about what someone else thinks of you--seems kind of unnecessary and even (to keep relatively on-topic) "unhealthy", be it mentally or physically. Living up to people's expectations is impossible--the imagination is far too strong to live up to.

[Wyrm]

When people say things like "I'm saddened by the knowledge that people use marijuana" or whatever, I immediately tune them out. Life is too short to worry about people that get caught up on shit like that, especially when there are plenty of other things to think about.

[Venkman]

You can find some scientist to back up whatever you want. It's all for sale.

[Oxonian]

In my case, I'd be disappointed in my friend for judging my actions. Even more so if he respected me so much. I wouldn't feel guilty whatsoever. He can have his opinion, and wouldn't be a prick for having it, but I would feel he was being judgmental. I've judged people, and too harshly at times, and THOSE times I feel guilty. I feel judging people based on your opinions of right and wrong, outside of imposing your will on others, isn't right to do.
What if the friend didn't think using marijuana was necessarily evil, but simply unwise? After all, even if marijuana doesn't cause lung cancer, there's at least some indication it can cause other lung ailments. I wouldn't want any of my friends or family to have lung problems; indeed, whenever I see them abuse their bodies, I feel a twinge of (immoral) envy and resentment that they have been graced with bodies that can stand such abuse. "Why," I think to myself, "do they profligately squander their good health while I suffer? Why don't they treasure their bodies and appreciate the tremendous gift they have received?" I know they aren't doing it maliciously, but it feels like they are rubbing my face in their good fortune.

But I particularly don't understand the notion that "judging people based on your opinions of right and wrong, outside of imposing your will on others, isn't right to do." If this is simply an argument that none of us is perfect and we should have some humility before damning others, fine. But are you really suggesting that it's wrong to believe another person's action is wrong? When I am confronted with evil, I shouldn't call it by its name? That's very strange. If I see something I think is ugly, I have no problem with saying, "I think that's ugly," even though beauty is notoriously subjective and open to debate. The same with things that are boring, depressing, funny, or clever. Nobody has any reluctance saying, "George Carlin is a funny guy," and people can have heated debates over whether he really is funny or not.

And "George Carlin is funny" isn't even really a statement that's true or false. That's pretty much purely a matter of opinion: people aren't objectively funny or unfunny, but funny to you.

By contrast, I and many other people believe "George Carlin is a good person" is a statement that is objectively true or false. Perhaps we're wrong on that, but it's not an inherently ridiculous view. And, of course, even people who agree that morality is objective disagree about what, exactly, morality requires. But why is it wrong to have a view about morality? And if it's OK to have an opinion about whether, say, smoking marijuana is good or evil, why wouldn't it be OK to express that view?

I don't like it when people point out my moral failings. But quite frequently, I can't really disagree with them, either. And, hopefully, if enough people point out my moral bankruptcy, I might bring myself to change.

[Oxonian]

uhm - why?
Part of it is simply that I'm scandalized that people would be so wasteful of their bodies and minds. Plenty of people in this world have serious health problems, and plenty of people struggle with cognitive impairments. For a healthy and intelligent person to intentionally consume a chemical that may worsen his health and will certainly cloud his mind -- it strikes me as profligate. The closest analogy I can think of would be a wealthy man who goes into the ghetto, pulls out a $100 bill, and uses it to light his cigar in front of a starving child.

Part of it is that's it's arguably ungrateful. God (or evolution, or whatever) has blessed you with an impressive mental faculty. Tossing it away, even if only for a few hours, is to metaphorically spit on that gift.

Mostly, though, I think a significant part of what's precious about human beings is their minds. In particular, the human ability to think logically is an important part (albeit only a part) of what makes us human. Impairing your ability to think logically and reverting to a more animalistic form of cognition is, in an important way, to reject your own humanity and lower yourself to the level of an animal.

[torrefaction]

What if the friend didn't think using marijuana was necessarily evil, but simply unwise? After all, even if marijuana doesn't cause lung cancer, there's at least some indication it can cause other lung ailments. I wouldn't want any of my friends or family to have lung problems; indeed, whenever I see them abuse their bodies, I feel a twinge of (immoral) envy and resentment that they have been graced with bodies that can stand such abuse. "Why," I think to myself, "do they profligately squander their good health while I suffer? Why don't they treasure their bodies and appreciate the tremendous gift they have received?" I know they aren't doing it maliciously, but it feels like they are rubbing my face in their good fortune.


You can have an negative opinion of something without judging or decrying the persons actions. Nothing's wrong with that. It's when it goes from friendly advice to ranting/abhoring the persons actions that it's a problem.


But I particularly don't understand the notion that "judging people based on your opinions of right and wrong, outside of imposing your will on others, isn't right to do." If this is simply an argument that none of us is perfect and we should have some humility before damning others, fine. But are you really suggesting that it's wrong to believe another person's action is wrong? When I am confronted with evil, I shouldn't call it by its name? That's very strange. If I see something I think is ugly, I have no problem with saying, "I think that's ugly," even though beauty is notoriously subjective and open to debate. The same with things that are boring, depressing, funny, or clever.


Well, I personally don't feel like any evil can come without imposing your will, in one way or another, on another person. Tragedy, maybe, but not evil. That's why I phrased it like that (And I was proud of that damn sentence too!). But yes, a big part of that argument is humility. No one is omnipotent, so if they aren't actively causing destruction or chaos in someone elses life (Or, for the sake of argument here, their own in the case of obvious signs of addiction), then it simply isn't another persons place to say they are morally superior to that person.

Because morals ARE relative to the person.I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay. Some people think they should be condemned to death.

Nobody has any reluctance saying, "George Carlin is a funny guy," and people can have heated debates over whether he really is funny or not.


And "George Carlin is funny" isn't even really a statement that's true or false. That's pretty much purely a matter of opinion: people aren't objectively funny or unfunny, but funny to you. By contrast, I and many other people believe "George Carlin is a good person" is a statement that is objectively true or false.

Bad example. Saying George Carlin is funny is a cold, hard fact.


Perhaps we're wrong on that, but it's not an inherently ridiculous view. And, of course, even people who agree that morality is objective disagree about what, exactly, morality requires. But why is it wrong to have a view about morality? And if it's OK to have an opinion about whether, say, smoking marijuana is good or evil, why wouldn't it be OK to express that view?

Everyone has the freedom to express their views. I wouldn't begrudge that. All said, it's part of MY morality not to judge others actions that don't impact me or show any sign of them hurting someone else. I don't feel it's RIGHT to do. I think there's a difference between saying this, and say, intervening when you recognize a friend's addiction. That (should be) acting out of compassion to help a friend, and not a judgmental action. Hell, if it is judgmental, it'll probably fail to help them.



I don't like it when people point out my moral failings. But quite frequently, I can't really disagree with them, either. And, hopefully, if enough people point out my moral bankruptcy, I might bring myself to change.

And to this day, I can't fathom what's morally bankrupt about a practice that only became intolerable about a hundred years ago due to the cotton industry and racism. Hell, hemp was gonna be our countries cash crop.

What's morally bankrupt about seeking a moment of peace? I'd say a relaxing with a cup of tea (herbs!) is the moral equivalent of smoking a joint. Provided the smoke isn't in a non-smoking area ;).

[torrefaction]

Part of it is that's it's arguably ungrateful. God (or evolution, or whatever) has blessed you with an impressive mental faculty. Tossing it away, even if only for a few hours, is to metaphorically spit on that gift.

Mostly, though, I think a significant part of what's precious about human beings is their minds. In particular, the human ability to think logically is an important part (albeit only a part) of what makes us human. Impairing your ability to think logically and reverting to a more animalistic form of cognition is, in an important way, to reject your own humanity and lower yourself to the level of an animal.

Doesn't that completely ignore the meditative properties of marijuana? Doesn't it ignore those who feel like it brings them peace, and not at the expense of their mind? Doesn't it ignore those who feel it opens gateways to creativity? Doesn't it ignore those who feel inspired?

[Dag-Sabot]

Ninja Edit btw.

I'm waiting to be 21 for my first taste of alcohol. A lot of people wait. I've had several times when I was offered sex, ...Wait you need to be 21 to have sex?!

[Oxonian]

Doesn't that completely ignore the meditative properties of marijuana? Doesn't it ignore those who feel like it brings them peace, and not at the expense of their mind? Doesn't it ignore those who feel it opens gateways to creativity? Doesn't it ignore those who feel inspired?
I think I don't so much ignore people who feel that way as disagree with them. When we had this conversation before, I pointed out that I was skeptical that people were actually more creative while under the influence.

But leave that aside for the moment. I'm dubious that it's possible for anything to "bring[]... peace, and not at the expense of the[] mind." True contemplation is not peaceful, it is not restful, and it is not meditative: it is a stormy and tumultuous process, not a state of being.

But even if I were to concede that mental peace was a good thing, it's not clear that I have to say marijuana is also good. After all, the most reliable way of achieving mental peace is to undergo a lobotomy. From what I've seen, this is more or less how intoxicants bring mental peace: they suppress your critical and logical faculties, so you have the sullen peace of a particularly stupid farm animal. In contrast to meditation, which brings peace by careful mental discipline, drugs bring peace by preventing you from thinking too hard.

Now, plenty of people take great offense at this comparison, insisting that various intoxicants actually enhance their reasoning skills. If I'm wrong about the effect drugs have on people, I'm probably therefore wrong about the morality of drug use. But while I've seen plenty of people who think they are more clever when high, I haven't actually seen anyone who is more clever when high. Indeed, in my experience, intoxication universally makes people significantly dumber. If and when I encounter an exception to this rule, I'll reconsider my stance.

[Bone]

Part of it is simply that I'm scandalized that people would be so wasteful of their bodies and minds. Plenty of people in this world have serious health problems, and plenty of people struggle with cognitive impairments. For a healthy and intelligent person to intentionally consume a chemical that may worsen his health and will certainly cloud his mind -- it strikes me as profligate. The closest analogy I can think of would be a wealthy man who goes into the ghetto, pulls out a $100 bill, and uses it to light his cigar in front of a starving child.

Part of it is that's it's arguably ungrateful. God (or evolution, or whatever) has blessed you with an impressive mental faculty. Tossing it away, even if only for a few hours, is to metaphorically spit on that gift.

Mostly, though, I think a significant part of what's precious about human beings is their minds. In particular, the human ability to think logically is an important part (albeit only a part) of what makes us human. Impairing your ability to think logically and reverting to a more animalistic form of cognition is, in an important way, to reject your own humanity and lower yourself to the level of an animal.
Your whole argument could easily be applied to someone who enjoys TV or video games.

[Grey]

Part of it is simply that I'm scandalized that people would be so wasteful of their bodies and minds. [..]

As I though.

Ever imagined that there are may people who simply enjoy the moment? This drug has multiple effects, which arent pure negative or only used to escape some crappy reality. Many people can control the use of it pretty well and live a normal, healthy life.

Weed is not some strange toxic waste which damages your body immidiatly. If you use it wisely and responsible it causes no harm at all. Its the same as it is with almost everything you can consume: Too much = bad. No matter if thats a drug or simple food.

Therefore I absoluty cant understand why you feel bad in this total specific matter. I think thats some of the least things one could ever worry about.

[Oxonian]

Your whole argument could easily be applied to someone who enjoys TV or video games.
To the extent that's true, then it applies equally to TV or video games.

Actually, I'm OK with that. There are TV show and video games that engage the intellect and stimulate the mind. There are also TV shows and video games that are completely mindless. Friends comes to mind, although I'm having a little difficulty thinking of a truly mindless video game right now. I'll confess I've indulged in mindless entertainment on many occasions. It's a minor example of one of my many moral failings. If I condemn myself for watching stupid TV, why shouldn't I say it's bad for you to do it, too?

[Bone]

I don't know Ox, I guess you should condemn people all you want.

For a second there I thought you were acknowledging that how people choose to waste their time, which ultimately includes wasting their intellect, their potential, and their lifespan, is their business- and that condemning them says more about you than it does them.

[torrefaction]

But even if I were to concede that mental peace was a good thing, it's not clear that I have to say marijuana is also good. After all, the most reliable way of achieving mental peace is to undergo a lobotomy. From what I've seen, this is more or less how intoxicants bring mental peace: they suppress your critical and logical faculties, so you have the sullen peace of a particularly stupid farm animal. In contrast to meditation, which brings peace by careful mental discipline, drugs bring peace by preventing you from thinking too hard.


Doesn't that ignore HOW THC works? I just don't agree with you on the negative impact on mental faculties. It's easy to relax and NOT think, but I don't in anyway believe it actually PREVENTS thinking.

Recent research has shown that many adverse side-effects, generally known as the "stoner" stereotype, fail to hold up to the scientific method. Recent studies with synthetic cannabinoids show that activation of CB1 receptors can facilitate neurogeneration, as well as neuroprotection, and can even help prevent natural neural degradation from neurodegenerative diseases such as MS, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's; however, neurogeneration has occurred only in rats due to the introduction of an optical isomer of THC, and not THC itself. This, along with research into the CB2 receptor (throughout the immune system), has given the case for medical marijuana more support.

Some studies also claim a variety of negative effects associated with constant, long-term use, including short-term memory loss. Other studies have refuted this by evidence of MRIs of long term users showing little or no difference to MRIs of the non-using control group. Although using positron emission tomography (PET), at least one study claims to have observed altered memory-related brain function in marijuana users. [5] The long-term effects of THC on humans have been disputed because its status as an illegal drug makes research difficult.

New scientific evidence is showing that THC can prevent Alzheimer's Disease by counteracting the activation of microglia and thus inducing the inflammation of microglia binding to amyloid protein.

[Oxonian]

So let me ask you this, Bone: imagine I was a brilliant fellow with the ability to, say, cure cancer. But rather than doing that, I chose to spend my days sitting alone in a filthy room, in my underwear, picking my nose. Would you really not have an opinion about that? And if someone suggested that, maybe, I wasn't such an admirable guy, would you whip around and say, "Hey! What Ox wants to do is his business, and nobody else's. Condemning him says more about you than it does about him"?

I've heard plenty of people claim they don't care what people do in their private lives. But I'm not sure I've ever encountered anyone who really consistently refrained from forming an opinion about others' life decisions. I've always assumed that meant people didn't really subscribe to the non-judgmental philosophy, but perhaps it's just that the people I know are inconsistent.

[Oxonian]

It's easy to relax and NOT think, but I don't in anyway believe it actually PREVENTS thinking.
Surely being high causes short-term cognitive impairment? Anecdotally, I know that during conversations with people who were high, including some very clever people, they had surprising difficulty following the thread of even simple conversations and were easily distracted and had difficulty expressing themselves verbally.

Although long terms effects of cannabis use is polarised in the scientific community preventing any firm consensus of its effects, short term effects are well documented. Effects such as short-term memory and attention loss, loss of motor skills and dexterity, reduced reaction time, and lower abilities to perform skilled activities can be hazardous to human life if combined with potentially hazardous activities such as driving. Cannabis use can also lead to anxiety and panic reactions.
Maybe marijuana has no long-term effects. But while you're high, you're not thinking very clearly.

[Bone]

So let me ask you this, Bone: imagine I was a brilliant fellow with the ability to, say, cure cancer. But rather than doing that, I chose to spend my days sitting alone in a filthy room, in my underwear, picking my nose. Would you really not have an opinion about that? And if someone suggested that, maybe, I wasn't such an admirable guy, would you whip around and say, "Hey! What Ox wants to do is his business, and nobody else's. Condemning him says more about you than it does about him"?So everyone can cure cancer? What potential are you and I wasting here? Obviously in your extreme example, someone with such a potentially reality-shattering talent may be obligated to bring it to fruition (although I will argue that some of our greatest minds have similarly frittered away their talents on time- and mind-wasting activities).

But in our case, you still haven't proven how I am less productive or creative than you are, based on our lifestyles. I'm married, I work full-time, draw, make music and play in a band *. I'm pretty damn busy and creative. I don't attribute it to pot, nor do I believe it's held me back any more than playing video games and watching TV has done for you. That's all.

*while still managing to play games and bitch about them on forums

[IrishWhiskey]

Part of it is simply that I'm scandalized that people would be so wasteful of their bodies and minds. Plenty of people in this world have serious health problems, and plenty of people struggle with cognitive impairments. For a healthy and intelligent person to intentionally consume a chemical that may worsen his health and will certainly cloud his mind -- it strikes me as profligate. The closest analogy I can think of would be a wealthy man who goes into the ghetto, pulls out a $100 bill, and uses it to light his cigar in front of a starving child.

Part of it is that's it's arguably ungrateful. God (or evolution, or whatever) has blessed you with an impressive mental faculty. Tossing it away, even if only for a few hours, is to metaphorically spit on that gift.

Mostly, though, I think a significant part of what's precious about human beings is their minds. In particular, the human ability to think logically is an important part (albeit only a part) of what makes us human. Impairing your ability to think logically and reverting to a more animalistic form of cognition is, in an important way, to reject your own humanity and lower yourself to the level of an animal.I think a better analogy might be having a glass of wine, or a few beers. Or sleeping more than is minimally necessary and having bacon with breakfast.

And believe me, I do know a few people who are way more productive and creative when high, particularly writers and musicians. It stimulates their thinking rather than suppressing it.

[torrefaction]

So let me ask you this, Bone: imagine I was a brilliant fellow with the ability to, say, cure cancer. But rather than doing that, I chose to spend my days sitting alone in a filthy room, in my underwear, picking my nose. Would you really not have an opinion about that? And if someone suggested that, maybe, I wasn't such an admirable guy, would you whip around and say, "Hey! What Ox wants to do is his business, and nobody else's. Condemning him says more about you than it does about him"?

I've heard plenty of people claim they don't care what people do in their private lives. But I'm not sure I've ever encountered anyone who really consistently refrained from forming an opinion about others' life decisions. I've always assumed that meant people didn't really subscribe to the non-judgmental philosophy, but perhaps it's just that the people I know are inconsistent.

The way your argument comes across is that you believe people who smoke aren't doing good for society, that it somehow prevents them from being great. This smacks of superiority, and I think that's the cause of Bone's reaction to it. Honestly, I don't recall judging anyone who wants to live their life the way they want. I may not want to be near them or associate them because they're not compatible with what I want my life to be, but I'm not judgmental of it.

For instance, I live in the ghetto so I can afford to rent a single family home with a lot (Drums are loud.) My neighbors next door are pretty much crackheads. Do I care? No. I let one of them try a nice belgian ale of mine, and had no problem talking to them early on. It's only as I watched their addiction progress, and that it impacted me, that I cut off the friendly conversations and reverted to being merely civil. I can name 100 instances of this where it really didn't matter to me what walk of life the person came from.

I try to be consistent in my beliefs,and I also try to call myself out when I fail to do so. Which is more certainly more often than I'd like, but we all have our faults.

[Oxonian]

So everyone can cure cancer? What potential are you and I wasting here? Obviously in your extreme example, someone with such a potentially reality-shattering talent may be obligated to bring it to fruition (although I will argue that some of our greatest minds have similarly frittered away their talents on time- and mind-wasting activities).
Are you saying you would condemn me for wasting a "reality-shattering talent"? What on Earth would justify you doing so? After all, I wouldn't be harming anyone. And that's the only standard by which we can judge people's actions, according to you.

You seem to have misunderstood my purpose in this thread. I didn't, and still don't, want to discuss whether drug use is bad. I wanted to discuss whether your standard for judging others -- the nebulous concept of "harm" -- is the right one. I don't think it is, and indeed, you seem to indicate that you don't think it is, either. After all, although you have refused to try to define "harm," you've certainly indicated that I don't "harm" you by failing to give you money. And although I might possess the power to cure cancer, it's not like I'm inflicting cancer on anyone. Yet you seem to think I would have an obligation to get off my ass if I possess a "reality-shattering talent."

So what qualifies as a "reality-shattering talent"? Will something less than the ability to cure cancer qualify?

[Dag-Sabot]

So let me ask you this, Bone: imagine I was a brilliant fellow with the ability to, say, cure cancer.The only one who knows your true potential is your maker or maybe yourself. You'd have no way of knowing your friends true potential for curing cancer, hence you'd be in no position to trully judge him... Unless you're omnipotent.

Also why cancer? Malaria kills many more people, just not the comparatively rich privileged western type.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Anyone notice how 99% of the weed haters seem to be religious nuts?

[DylonCorp]

Just jumping in to say that my own studies have shown that smoking pot and forum reading and posting waste the exact same amount of brain cells.

And, I have incontrovertible evidence! The last of my w-2's arrived today.

[torrefaction]

Anyone notice how 99% of the weed haters seem to be religious nuts?

Everytime I get somewhere on the "enlightened" pot smoker argument, someone makes a post like this.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Everytime I get somewhere on the "enlightened" pot smoker argument, someone makes a post like this.

Your post is exactly why I said it. Thank you for proving a point.

[Venkman]

So what qualifies as a "reality-shattering talent"? Will something less than the ability to cure cancer qualify?

This qualifies:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=H0YgrUKfTcA

[torrefaction]

Your post is exactly why I said it. Thank you for proving a point.

What the hell kind of point did you make? That you have something against organized religion?

Congrats?

[EternalGamer]

The stereotype of "lethargy" induced by marijuana is, at the very least, a subjective effect. What it does do is make monotonous or menial labor a lot more tolerable. I have found that, in moderation, it can really help in terms of close readings of sophisticated material because it slows down your reading process to make you concentrating on the implications of the words and their associations and prevents automatic (and sometimes faulty) associations.

Marijuana doesn't necessarily produce a "worse" type of thinking. It just produces a different type of thinking. And it can lead to a type of freer associative thinking that is simply not accessible in a sober state of mind. Yes, it is a state of mind that is not good for things that require sophisticated mechanical operation or quick reflexes. But it has other benefits.

[torrefaction]

This qualifies:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=H0YgrUKfTcA

Whoever made this.

http://gizmodo.com/350091/cheeseburger-in-a-can-is-both-the-best-and-worst-thing-ive-ever-seen

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

What the hell kind of point did you make? That you have something against organized religion?

Congrats?

Oh dear, have I offended you? Hold on let me grab a tissue.

It was supposed to be inflammatory, and no thats not my point.

[Venkman]

The stereotype of "lethargy" induced by marijuana is, at the very least, a subjective effect. What it does do is make monotonous or menial labor a lot more enjoyable.

Sounds good. At first I thought it might make the DMV less maddening, but then I thought that having your picture taken while baked might not be the best thing for a photo ID. ;)

[Oxonian]

The way your argument comes across is that you believe people who smoke aren't doing good for society, that it somehow prevents them from being great.
Well, that's not what I'm trying to say. I know people who use drugs who do great things for society. A good friend of mine, who uses marijuana and cocaine regularly, was until very recently a public servant who did tremendous good for hundreds of people. So I'm not saying that everyone, or even most people, who use drugs spend their time kicking kittens and punching grandmas.

And when this friend of mine was sober, he was a brilliant, charming, and witty fellow. But when he was high, he was stupid and irritating. At the very least, he deprived me of the pleasure of his company. More significantly, when he was sober, his mind was such a fruitful and impressive entity that, even when I wasn't around him, it gave me pleasure just to contemplate that he was somewhere out there being clever. When he was high, it made me sad to know his light was dimmed.

Did I stand on a pulpit and hurl rhetorical brimstone at him, claiming that he was worthless and an embarassment to humanity? No. On balance, my friend was a pretty good guy. But although he was on balance pretty good, his drug use was not one of his better character traits. If he had foresworn drugs, he would have been a better son, a better friend, a better boyfriend, and he would have been better at helping the public. He would, in short, have been a better person. So, while I very much care for my friend, I think of his drug use the way I think of his rudeness, his arrogance, his sense of entitlement, and his occasional attempts to subvert democracy: as blemishes on his otherwise good record.

In other words, when I say I think using drugs is immoral, I'm not suggesting I'm better than someone else. Heck, it's not like I've never consumed intoxicants myself. But just like I think it's important to recognize when someone does something good, like being a good father, I think it's equally important to acknowledge when someone acts inappropriately. We can differ on whether using drugs is a good thing or a bad thing, but surely it's not wrong to have an opinion on the issue.

[torrefaction]

Oh dear, have I offended you? Hold on let me grab a tissue.

It was supposed to be inflammatory, and no thats not my point.

Offended me? I'm a non-practicing agnostic.

I just think you're coming across as an idiot.

[Venkman]

Everyone should just watch season 3 of The Wire, then come back to the thread.

[Oxonian]

Anyone notice how 99% of the weed haters seem to be religious nuts?
Am I part of the 99% religious nuts or the 1% who are not religious nuts?

Actually, I'm not really sure I'd say I "hate" weed. I view it more as a temptation that exists to be resisted. But whatever.

[torrefaction]

Well, that's not what I'm trying to say. I know people who use drugs who do great things for society. A good friend of mine, who uses marijuana and cocaine regularly, was until very recently a public servant who did tremendous good for hundreds of people. So I'm not saying that everyone, or even most people, who use drugs spend their time kicking kittens and punching grandmas.

That'd make for good TV.

In other words, when I say I think using drugs is immoral, I'm not suggesting I'm better than someone else. Heck, it's not like I've never consumed intoxicants myself. But just like I think it's important to recognize when someone does something good, like being a good father, I think it's equally important to acknowledge when someone acts inappropriately. We can differ on whether using drugs is a good thing or a bad thing, but surely it's not wrong to have an opinion on the issue.

Oh, of course it's not wrong to have an opinion. I think I specifically said I think that it's perfectly okay to have the opinion, with the exception that I don't think it's okay to judge or decry a persons actions on a morally relativistic subject. And that's what this is, at heart. I think the label immoral is heavily weighted (entirely because it is so reliant on the other party agreeing with you), and you might be better served to come up with a less charged way of expressing your viewpoint. You should probably know that I didn't think the way I described your position was how you felt, but only how it came across.

Also, while I don't believe drugs are inherently bad, I'm not naive enough to believe that they never have adverse effects on people. Hell, I know people who become annoying as hell if they drink too much caffeine, let alone do a line of coke. I can think of numerous people who I liked better when they weren't under the influence. The common thread all these people had were highly addictive personalities, and they usually found some other way to express that flaw even if it wasn't illegal substances.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Offended me? I'm a non-practicing agnostic.

I just think you're coming across as an idiot.

Being called an idiot by an Agnostic is hilarious. Wait, I forgot non-practicing. :rolleyes:

I come across as an idiot because I post a purposefully inflammatory post hoping to get certain responses, which I got? k

I just love seeing how touchy people are about religion, especially in a thread about drugs, and a large part of it about morals.

Am I part of the 99% religious nuts or the 1% who are not religious nuts?

Actually, I'm not really sure I'd say I "hate" weed. I view it more as a temptation that exists to be resisted. But whatever.

Probably the larger portion judging by your use of "temptation".

[Deadend]

Everyone should just watch season 3 of The Wire, then come back to the thread.

That would be a long time away from the thread. But I would like to watch The Wire. And from what I hear, people should just watch The Wire in general.

[torrefaction]

Being called an idiot by an Agnostic is hilarious. Wait, I forgot non-practicing. :rolleyes:

I come across as an idiot because I post a purposefully inflammatory post hoping to get certain responses, which I got? k

I just love seeing how touchy people are about religion, especially in a thread about drugs, and a large part of it about morals.


The non-practicing was a joke. I have no evidence for or against anything. My gut, along with Einstein's, is that there is an overarching force. I'm not egotistical enough to try and put a name to that. I used to meditate quite a bit (The athiest's prayer?), but I don't now. Hence the non-practicing.

You come across as an idiot for judging people who are religious. This is typically the same complaint that gets thrown at religious people (Being judgmental.) You added nothing to the conversation, and made yourself sound stupid in the process.

You expected people to get touchy about religious, and someone who has no interest in religion calling you out was the response you wanted? Good luck in your little world.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Did you miss the "sarcastic smiley"?

How did I judge anyone? Its a fact that religious people are sensitive about it. Religion in general is a touchy subject for most people but thats not even the issue.

[torrefaction]

Did you miss the "sarcastic smiley"?

How did I judge anyone? Its a fact that religious people are sensitive about it. Religion in general is a touchy subject for most people but thats not even the issue.

Gee,people are sensitive about being judged for their beliefs and about being called nuts?

Who would've guessed it?

*Edit*

You judged people right away when you said "Religious nuts".

[Venkman]

Why does every thread on this board degenerate into the same old people arguing the same thing?

Even the thread of the video game adaptation of Ender's game is full of this shit.

[Bone]

Are you saying you would condemn me for wasting a "reality-shattering talent"? What on Earth would justify you doing so? After all, I wouldn't be harming anyone. And that's the only standard by which we can judge people's actions, according to you.Actually I still said he "may" have an obligation. I didn't say I'd jump on the condemnation train. I also said I'd argue that some of our most celebrated minds (as yet uncondemned) have wasted time and mind.


You seem to have misunderstood my purpose in this thread. I didn't, and still don't, want to discuss whether drug use is bad. I wanted to discuss whether your standard for judging others -- the nebulous concept of "harm" -- is the right one. I don't think it is, and indeed, you seem to indicate that you don't think it is, either. After all, although you have refused to try to define "harm," you've certainly indicated that I don't "harm" you by failing to give you money.Agreed. There is a nebulous line somewhere, and your examples have all been at the extreme, which allows no discussion of the finer grey areas at all. We all agree that you hacking off my arm would give me reason to be sad and feel harmed. Certainly your not giving me money, while it makes me sad, does not harm me. Nor should my personal habits harm you. But that has been what you seemed to argue for the most part.


And although I might possess the power to cure cancer, it's not like I'm inflicting cancer on anyone. Yet you seem to think I would have an obligation to get off my ass if I possess a "reality-shattering talent."Although, I didn't say or imply that. Again, your example left no wiggle room and I would not commit to condemnation based on it. Besides, cancer would likely be cured by a large group effort. I would need a realistic example.

But I also will take a stand, for I am against willfully inflicting cancer, baby killing, and baby eating, alive or dead. Those things are wrong and I won't stand for them.

So what qualifies as a "reality-shattering talent"? Your ability to play Devil's Advocate and argue something you apparently don't even believe.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Gee,people are sensitive about being judged for their beliefs and about being called nuts?

Who would've guessed it?

*Edit*

You judged people right away when you said "Religious nuts".

Religious nut: Someone who takes their religion very serious...

Most people these days half-ass their religion of choice. The point being that those who lead their lives based upon a religion[iHap and others] would be instantly against marijuana for only religious reasoning. "Morals" are usually based off of religion as well.

[Venkman]

That would be a long time away from the thread. But I would like to watch The Wire. And from what I hear, people should just watch The Wire in general.


Heh, missed you there. What's good about season 3 (Netflix it now!) is that a Baltimore police official can't find a way to control the drug-trade related violence in his sector, so he literally herds all the drug dealers into "free zones" where police do not enforce drug laws.

They try, valiantly in my opinion, to look at drug legalization from many angles: from that of the cops, the dealers, the "runners" and lookouts, the dope fiends, the politicians, health officials, etc. The ensuing TV is top notch. They even got former Baltimore Mayor Schmoke on there in a very subtle nod to the ideas that got him labeled "The most dangerous man in America".

The opinions formed by the different characters may surprise you.

[Oxonian]

I also said I'd argue that some of our most celebrated minds (as yet uncondemned) have wasted time and mind.
I'd agree with that. Isn't that a bad thing?
There is a nebulous line somewhere, and your examples have all been at the extreme, which allows no discussion of the finer grey areas at all.
I was going to extreme examples so that I could get you to agree on the bounds of the issue, then we could narrow it down. You insist that you "may" agree I would have an obligation in the curing-cancer example. If you're not willing to agree that such an extreme example poses a moral obligation, how can we move on to the finer grey areas?

Although, I didn't say or imply that.
Sorry. When you wrote "Obviously... someone with such a potentially reality-shattering talent may be obligated to bring it to fruition," I thought that meant you believed there was an obligation. Clearly I misread you.

Besides, cancer would likely be cured by a large group effort. I would need a realistic example.
This sounds a little like a cop-out. Plenty of major medical advances have been made by individuals, and I don't see why you can't engage in moral reasoning about an unrealistic hypothetical. When you engage in moral reasoning, don't you take an abstract principle (e.g., "Do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anyone") and apply it to the facts at hand? Why can't you do that here? Or do you use some other method of moral reasoning?

But you've asked me for a more realistic example, so I'll try. Lawyers frequently work alone, right? So let's say I have the ability to be a brilliant lawyer, righting wrongs, correcting injustice, and freeing innocent men from prison. But instead I choose to sit around in my underwear. Is that wrong?

[jeffbax]

Anyone notice how 99% of the weed haters seem to be religious nuts?
Not necessarily, but it does seem like a lot of people like to just talk a lot of BS they've had drilled into their heads since 3rd grade DARE and have probably never even tried it (makes me think of a certain mass effect fox news report...)

Similarly, I hope everyone who argues against marijuana is equally prepared to ban all alcohol and cigarette consumption, because otherwise you are part of a gigantic, blatant double standard.

Pot:
1) Makes people passive (unlike booze, which makes people aggressive or nicotine which makes people twitchy)
2) Can be consumed (the THC) in ways besides smoking - such as cooking or vaporizing which does significantly less harm to the body than smoking or drinking
3) Kills nobody by itself (no overdose / "weed poisoning") although the jury is still out to its effects on things like lung cancer - I'm sure its not GOOD for you to smoke but nobody bitches about what is done to livers worldwide...
4) Has proven medical benefits often with far less side-effects than traditional synthetic drugs
5) Is significantly less habit forming (at least physically) than nicotine or alcohol
6) Occurs completely naturally / Generally doesn't have additives to it such as the smorgasbord of chemicals added to the typical cigarette
7) Can be abused or used in moderation, and typically in way more moderation than ciggs or alcohol
8) Can be grown by people in their own home - self made medicine or relatively cheap / safe way to relax

I'm not saying anyone is obligated to like it (it sure smells like shit) or do it, but the demonization of it is just fucking crazy. Now, these are just my stupid realizations at a generally very smart university where plenty of people use it just fine (and go on to be quite successful). This "moral crusade" against it is just pretty dumb. Who is to say that smoking a plant is moral or not?

Really... its obvious that people can be your stupid stereotypical waste of life stoner, but the same can be said about anything be it booze, video games, television, name your topic here...

57DdviStOFo

[Bone]

Lawyers frequently work alone, right? So let's say I have the ability to be a brilliant lawyer, righting wrongs, correcting injustice, and freeing innocent men from prison. But instead I choose to sit around in my underwear. Is that wrong?No. Your choice to help would be your own business, just as your choice not to would be.

[Primus]

At least you get something out of pot.

[Wyrm]

At least you get something out of pot.

Unlike religion! LOL

;)

[Oxonian]

No. Your choice to help would be your own business, just as your choice not to would be.
OK. At least you've taken a stand.

So coming back to your original point: you said it was "immoral" for me to judge you. But when I judge you for using marijuana, I don't physically injure you. Heck, even racists and anti-Semites don't necessarily cause their victims material harm: how is a upper-middle-class Jewish New Yorker harmed by the backward opinions of some toothless redneck? So I guess you wouldn't criticize me for judging you or believing black people are inferior.

Or, to put it another way: let's say the reason the lawyer sits around in his underwear is not because he's lazy, but because he hates the idea that he might help innocent black people to be released from prison. Perhaps I don't have the right to force a racist lawyer to do something he doesn't want to do. But you go much further and call me immoral if I dare criticize the lawyer. Is there an argument for why I shouldn't criticize the lawyer, or is it just an axiom?

[Bone]

You really overthink this stuff. Anyway, I don't recall saying it was immoral for you to judge me... I was pointing out the questionable morality of someone who questions someone else's morality. I realize it's recursive.

You have insinuated that you're Christian, I believe? My mistake if not, but I thought the Bible teaches us not to judge others. I'm not Christian and yet I try and follow that one myself. I realize I fail at times but I also don't want to make it a point to justify my reasons for judging people. So this exercise in determining just when it's OK to judge someone, to me, is pointless.

[Oxonian]

You really overthink this stuff. Anyway, I don't recall saying it was immoral for you to judge me... I was pointing out the questionable morality of someone who questions someone else's morality. I realize it's recursive.
But I can't see how someone can attack my morals for doing something that harms nobody but myself (and even that is still open for debate). Especially when attacking someone's morals is itself an immoral act, in my opinion!
"Attacking someone's morals" was the phrase you used. It's slightly vague, but I assumed it included saying things like, "Bone uses marijuana. I believe using marijuana is immoral. Therefore, I believe Bone engages in immoral activity. Immorality is by definition bad, so I believe Bone does bad things. People shouldn't do bad things. So Bone shouldn't smoke marijuana, because it's bad." Did I misunderstand you? Are you cool with that?

You have insinuated that you're Christian, I believe? My mistake if not, but I thought the Bible teaches us not to judge others.
It's more complicated than that. Jesus famously said to "judge not lest ye be judged." This isn't particularly a warning that judgment is immoral, but rather that it's dangerous: if I criticize your faults, you can criticize mine. Since I have plenty of faults of my own, I'm playing with fire and may come out worse for the exchange.

Moreover, it's a point about the afterlife: Christians believe that God will consider their sins after they die (and maybe before). Since we are all sinners who deserve punishment, we should be terrified of God's righteousness. If we are to ask God to overlook our faults and have mercy on us, it behooves us to do the same: we ask God to "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." That doesn't mean closing our eyes to the trespasses of others, but acknowledging those trespasses and forgiving them.

Ultimately, I as a Christian have an overriding duty to you: I am supposed to love you and help you, no matter how irritating I think you are. Part of helping you is to watch out for you and try to warn you when I think you are endangering yourself. If I saw you playing with a gun I knew to be loaded, I wouldn't turn my back and say, "That's his business." I'd beg you to put the gun down before you hurt yourself. No matter what you say, I hope you would do the same for me.

When I learn that you use marijuana, I believe you endanger your health, your mind, your humanity, and possibly even your immortal soul. Believing you are in peril, I would have to have a callous heart indeed to shrug my shoulders and be indifferent to your fate. I might even damn myself: not only would I have failed in my obligation to warn you of your error, but by refusing to see morality in others, I might lose the faculty of knowing when I err. So I call to you now, saying I believe you have strayed from the right path, and asking you to return to the fold.

Is this lecture irritating? Having been on the receiving end many times, I agree it's very irritating. If you think this is irritating, wait until someone points out that a favored hobby of yours is immoral using reasoning you agree with. That will ruin your whole day.

My stepfather is deeply anti-Catholic, and he finds my faith incomprehensible an belief in "magic." It drives me up the wall when he tries to undermine my faith, particularly when he uses snide and condescending commentary on principles like transubstantiation and confession. Obviously, I disagree with him on those points. And I might think he's sometimes unnecessarily rude about it. But I know he does so because he sincerely cares about my theological beliefs, even though that's quintessentially a personal matter. It would only really bother me if he stopped caring one way or another. I'd rather be judged than be ignored.

[jeffbax]

I bet Jesus smoked pot, fucking hippy :p

[mister_slim]

Do what thou wilt.

[nathansmart]

Gosh - this board is filled with Republicans and weed smokers.. never thought I see that...

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Gosh - this board is filled with Republicans and weed smokers.. never thought I see that...

You are forgetting the drunks, but they have their special place hidden away... For obvious safety reasons.

[ceksbhot]

well the amerindian ritual of smoking the pipe carries with it an often unspoken point of the two or more participants sharing a ritualized mini-death...that knowledge that the very act of smoking emulated the act of standing downwind of the lock of hair cut from a dead loved one and cast in the fire after their burial...so to smoke was to emulate standing in your own death and that of the other you were making peace with...tobacco was used for this ritual

cannibis on the other hand was most commonly a food resource of no major note...the seeds were pounded into a flour and the buds were often roasted or stewed, and the leaves were pounded into meat and or pemmican cakes

i guess the moral of the whole story would be smoking anything is the emulation of death and children should eat their ganja

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Something that was never brought up is that there is not one form of marijuana. All the different strains have different effects, Im assuming most people generally know nothing about it other than "It gets you high and makes you stupid."

Not to mention dosages vary and make a difference as well.

Then again maybe some people who are anti-marijuana have actually studied the subject? :confused:

[Oxonian]

Something that was never brought up is that there is not one form of marijuana. All the different strains have different effects, Im assuming most people generally know nothing about it other than "It gets you high and makes you stupid."

Not to mention dosages vary and make a difference as well.

Then again maybe some people who are anti-marijuana have actually studied the subject? :confused:
Are there forms of marijuana that don't get you high? If so, why do people consume them? I didn't think many people consumed marijuana for the flavor.

[Beelzebud]

Are there forms of marijuana that don't get you high? If so, why do people consume them? I didn't think many people consumed marijuana for the flavor.

Different strains have different potency levels.

[no wii]

i think i saw suicide king being a jerk on here the other day about the administration not lying to public. it was annoying . get off this video game site and kill yourself already . the world is made of gays and druggy's . so have your administration blow me up.

[torrefaction]

i think i saw suicide king being a jerk on here the other day about the administration not lying to public. it was annoying . get off this video game site and kill yourself already . the world is made of gays and druggy's . so have your administration blow me up.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9c/Mr._Nonsense.jpg/200px-Mr._Nonsense.jpg

[Oxonian]

Different strains have different potency levels.
I know different strains of marijuana have different concentrations of THC. Likewise, different forms of alcoholic beverage -- beer, wine, liquor -- have different alcohol contents. But the fundamental psychoactive chemical -- THC for marijuana, ethanol for adult beverages -- is still the same, right? Drinking 12 oz. of beer has about the same effect on a person (at least his cognitive abilities) as 1.5 oz. of whiskey. I assumed marijuana worked the same way: if you smoke enough of a weak strain, you'll have about the same effects as smoking a little bit of a very potent strain. But other people would know better than I would.

If there are strains of marijuana that contain no THC, and consequently have no psychoactive effects, then most of my objections don't apply to those strains. Would anyone pay money for THC-less marijuana?

[mr. murphy]

I know different strains of marijuana have different concentrations of THC. Likewise, different forms of alcoholic beverage -- beer, wine, liquor -- have different alcohol contents. But the fundamental psychoactive chemical -- THC for marijuana, ethanol for adult beverages -- is still the same, right? Drinking 12 oz. of beer has about the same effect on a person (at least his cognitive abilities) as 1.5 oz. of whiskey. I assumed marijuana worked the same way: if you smoke enough of a weak strain, you'll have about the same effects as smoking a little bit of a very potent strain. But other people would know better than I would.

If there are strains of marijuana that contain no THC, and consequently have no psychoactive effects, then most of my objections don't apply to those strains. Would anyone pay money for THC-less marijuana?

He might have been suggesting that smoking a small amount of a strong strain would get you just as high as a large amount of a weak strain, but since you are smoking less marijuana, you would get less carcinogens and smoke damage.

In other words, shitty weed causes cancer! ;)

[Goronmon]

i think i saw suicide king being a jerk on here the other day about the administration not lying to public. it was annoying . get off this video game site and kill yourself already . the world is made of gays and druggy's . so have your administration blow me up.This post hurts me in my brain muscle.

[Oxonian]

He might have been suggesting that smoking a small amount of a strong strain would get you just as high as a large amount of a weak strain, but since you are smoking less marijuana, you would get less carcinogens and smoke damage.

In other words, shitty weed causes cancer! ;)
Ah. That seems logical. But are we convinced that THC itself has no negative health effects? I know there's some evidence to indicate that THC kills off pre-cancerous cells, but stuff that kills pre-cancerous cells tends not to be all that great for non-cancerous cells, either. Hence why chemotherapy is unpleasant.

[jeffbax]

I know different strains of marijuana have different concentrations of THC. Likewise, different forms of alcoholic beverage -- beer, wine, liquor -- have different alcohol contents. But the fundamental psychoactive chemical -- THC for marijuana, ethanol for adult beverages -- is still the same, right? Drinking 12 oz. of beer has about the same effect on a person (at least his cognitive abilities) as 1.5 oz. of whiskey. I assumed marijuana worked the same way: if you smoke enough of a weak strain, you'll have about the same effects as smoking a little bit of a very potent strain. But other people would know better than I would.

If there are strains of marijuana that contain no THC, and consequently have no psychoactive effects, then most of my objections don't apply to those strains. Would anyone pay money for THC-less marijuana?
Not every high is the same, some of it is a lot more clearheaded than others, or less drowsy, etc. Its not quite the same as with alcohol content.

[Beelzebud]

THC isn't the only psychoactive substance in marijuana for starters.

[Beelzebud]

If there are strains of marijuana that contain no THC, and consequently have no psychoactive effects, then most of my objections don't apply to those strains. Would anyone pay money for THC-less marijuana?

Marijuana without THC is called Hemp, and I know many clothing and textile manufacturers that would *love* to be able to legally grow their own for that fiber.

Too bad our illogical laws regarding marijuana keep hemp from being utilized.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Its not really possible to explain strain variances to someone with zero firsthand experience.

Ah. That seems logical. But are we convinced that THC itself has no negative health effects? I know there's some evidence to indicate that THC kills off pre-cancerous cells, but stuff that kills pre-cancerous cells tends not to be all that great for non-cancerous cells, either. Hence why chemotherapy is unpleasant.

Yes, otherwise there would be no FDA approved THC, aka Marinol (http://www.marinol.com/aboutmarinol/index.html).

In regards to weed, Cannabidiol usually outnumbers THC[Tetrahydrocannabinol] in weak strains, which has less positive effects. Well, not less, but its not psyhoactive.

[LongStepMantis]

Marijuana without THC is called Hemp, and I know many clothing and textile manufacturers that would *love* to be able to legally pay money for that fiber.

Too bad our illogical laws regarding marijuana keep hemp from being utilized.

Illogical to you and me, but probably not so much to the cotton and other textile growers who would be utterly crushed by hemp's usefulness.

Think of it like oil. They've been able to make hybrids and electric cars for at least a decade, but the oil companies don't like the idea of you buying less gas...so the status quo remains as long as they can make it last.

[Oxonian]

Marijuana without THC is called Hemp, and I know many clothing and textile manufacturers that would *love* to be able to legally pay money for that fiber.
I'm pretty sure it's legal to buy and use hemp, just not to grow it. So they're welcome to grow it abroad and import it if they like. China, I believe, permits hemp cultivation. I think Britain and Canada do as well.

Anyway, let me clarify my question: would anyone consume THC-less hemp?

[mr. murphy]

I'm pretty sure it's legal to buy and use hemp, just not to grow it. So they're welcome to grow it abroad and import it if they like. China, I believe, permits hemp cultivation. I think Britain and Canada do as well.

Anyway, let me clarify my question: would anyone consume THC-less hemp?

Why would they? It'd be like smoking a cotton t-shirt.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

I'm pretty sure it's legal to buy and use hemp, just not to grow it. So they're welcome to grow it abroad and import it if they like. China, I believe, permits hemp cultivation. I think Britain and Canada do as well.

Anyway, let me clarify my question: would anyone consume THC-less hemp?

No one consumes hemp at all, wtf. I would smoke non psychoactive marijuana, because I enjoy the flavor and aroma of a good strain, I would probably cut back/quit cigarettes if this were possible.

[Beelzebud]

I'm pretty sure it's legal to buy and use hemp, just not to grow it. So they're welcome to grow it abroad and import it if they like. China, I believe, permits hemp cultivation. I think Britain and Canada do as well.

Anyway, let me clarify my question: would anyone consume THC-less hemp?

Yeah it's not like we have the farm land to grow it ourselves and not have to pay tariffs on it...

Would you smoke leaves that fall from your trees?

[Virtuoso]

How about people just stop smoking things? I managed to get away with never smoking anything. It is possible, and I'd argue that it's actually less work.

Because of the human compulsion to ingest mind altering substances, and smoking things is less harmful than using needles or doing lines.

[Oxonian]

Its not really possible to explain strain variances to someone with zero firsthand experience.
Who ever said I had zero firsthand experience? I do like how everyone assumes I've never tried marijuana, despite the fact that a few months ago I specifically recounted an instance where I did ingest it. Do you really find it so difficult to believe that someone might have tried marijuana and not thought it was the greatest thing ever?

Yes, otherwise there would be no FDA approved THC.
Lots of FDA-approved drugs have terrible health effects. Marinol specifically warns of
drowsiness, euphoria, heightened sensory awareness, altered time
perception, red eyes, dry mouth and rapid heart rate (tachycardia). Moderate
overdosage would produce memory problems, depersonalization, mood
alteration, urinary retention, and constipation. Severe overdosage would lead to
decreased motor coordination, lethargy, slurred speech, and dizziness when
standing up too fast (postural hypotension).

Seizure and seizure-like activity have been reported in patients
receiving MARINOL Capsules during marketed use of the drug and in
clinical trials.

Capsules should be used with caution in patients with
cardiac disorders because of occasional hypotension, possible
hypertension, syncope, or tachycardia.

Body as a whole: Asthenia.
Cardiovascular: Palpitations, tachycardia, vasodilation/facial flush.
Digestive: Abdominal pain*, nausea*, vomiting*.
Nervous system: (Amnesia), anxiety/nervousness, (ataxia), confusion,
depersonalization, dizziness*, euphoria*, (hallucination), paranoid
reaction*, somnolence*, thinking abnormal*

Cardiovascular: Conjunctivitis*, hypotension*.
Digestive: Diarrhea*, fecal incontinence.
Musculoskeletal: Myalgias.
Nervous system: Depression, nightmares, speech difficulties, tinnitus.
Skin and Appendages: Flushing*.
Special senses: Vision difficulties.

Body as a whole: Chills, headache, malaise.
Digestive: Anorexia, hepatic enzyme elevation.
Respiratory: Cough, rhinitis, sinusitis.
Skin and Appendages: Sweating.

The estimated lethal human dose of intravenous dronabinol is 30 mg/kg
(2100 mg/70 kg). Significant CNS symptoms in antiemetic studies followed
oral doses of 0.4 mg/kg (28 mg/70 kg) of MARINOL Capsules.

Now, that's significantly less scary than some of the stuff printed on the patient information slips for my FDA-approved drugs. But abdominal pain, fecal incontinence, nausea, vomiting, and seizures don't sound fun. Maybe you and I have different ideas of a good time.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Firsthand experience with various strains, Im assuming you have none yes. Did you read all that or just copy and paste?

[Oxonian]

Did you read all that or just copy and paste?
:confused: How would I know what to copy and paste unless I read it? I don't actually have mastery of the Force.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

:confused: How would I know what to copy and paste unless I read it? I don't actually have mastery of the Force.

OH MY GOD, HAHAHAHAHA, YOU FORGOT THE INCIDENCE PERCENTAGES


PROBABLY CAUSALLY RELATED: Incidence greater than 1%.

Rates derived from clinical trials in AIDS-related anorexia (N=157) and chemotherapy-related nausea (N=317). Rates were generally higher in the anti-emetic use (given in parentheses).

Body as a whole: Asthenia.

Cardiovascular: Palpitations, tachycardia, vasodilation/facial flush.

Digestive: Abdominal pain*, nausea*, vomiting*.

Nervous system: (Amnesia), anxiety/nervousness, (ataxia), confusion, depersonalization, dizziness*, euphoria*, (hallucination), paranoid reaction*, somnolence*, thinking abnormal*.

*Incidence of events 3% to 10%

PROBABLY CAUSALLY RELATED: Incidence less than 1%.

Event rates derived from clinical trials in AIDS-related anorexia (N=157) and chemotherapy-related nausea (N=317).

Cardiovascular: Conjunctivitis*, hypotension*.

Digestive: Diarrhea*, fecal incontinence.

Musculoskeletal: Myalgias.

Nervous system: Depression, nightmares, speech difficulties, tinnitus.

Skin and Appendages: Flushing*.

Special senses: Vision difficulties.

*Incidence of events 0.3% to 1%

CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP UNKNOWN: Incidence less than 1%.

The clinical significance of the association of these events with MARINOL Capsules treatment is unknown, but they are reported as alerting information for the clinician.

Body as a whole: Chills, headache, malaise.

Digestive: Anorexia, hepatic enzyme elevation.

Respiratory: Cough, rhinitis, sinusitis.

Skin and Appendages: Sweating.

[jeffbax]

Who ever said I had zero firsthand experience? I do like how everyone assumes I've never tried marijuana, despite the fact that a few months ago I specifically recounted an instance where I did ingest it. Do you really find it so difficult to believe that someone might have tried marijuana and not thought it was the greatest thing ever?


Lots of FDA-approved drugs have terrible health effects. Marinol specifically warns of

Now, that's significantly less scary than some of the stuff printed on the patient information slips for my FDA-approved drugs. But abdominal pain, fecal incontinence, nausea, vomiting, and seizures don't sound fun. Maybe you and I have different ideas of a good time.
The synthetics make people sick, why do you think so many people fight for medical marijuana? Because the plant works better.

WKJCIrY-O5A

Illogical to you and me, but probably not so much to the cotton and other textile growers who would be utterly crushed by hemp's usefulness.

Think of it like oil. They've been able to make hybrids and electric cars for at least a decade, but the oil companies don't like the idea of you buying less gas...so the status quo remains as long as they can make it last.
So... we should let the lobbies inhibit progress?

[torrefaction]

Mitt Romney is such a dick.

[Scaryfaced]

Haven taken Merinol before, I can say the only negative reaction i had to it was eatting a full bucket of hot wings. Oh man, did my O ring hurt the next morning. I was shooting fire, it as horrible.

Bascially they're warning you against downing a whole bottle. Instead of overdosing like you would on basically any other drug in pill form, your heart rate will probably increase and you might get constipated. Your not going to feel your best, but your also not going to die. This can all be prevented by taking the prescribed amount, I'd think. You'd have to be mighty sensative to THC to have any of these reactions at lower dosages.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

I think Oxonian should have his name forcibly changed to Mitt Romney.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Haven taken Merinol before, I can say the only negative reaction i had to it was eatting a full bucket of hot wings. Oh man, did my O ring hurt the next morning. I was shooting fire, it as horrible.

Bascially they're warning you against downing a whole bottle. Instead of overdosing like you would on basically any other drug in pill form, your heart rate will probably increase and you might get constipated. Your not going to feel your best, but your also not going to die. This can all be prevented by taking the prescribed amount, I'd think. You'd have to be mighty sensative to THC to have any of these reactions at lower dosages.

Thank you, very fucking much.

[Oxonian]

OH MY GOD, HAHAHAHAHA, YOU FORGOT THE INCIDENCE PERCENTAGES
OH MY GOD HAHAHA YOU'RE RIGHT

So up to 10% of people who consume Marinol suffer from abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and hypotension. So does Marinol have negative health effects or not?

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

OH MY GOD HAHAHA YOU'RE RIGHT

So up to 10% of people who consume Marinol suffer from abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and hypotension. So does Marinol have negative health effects or not?

Negative, you mean does it get you high? Yes.

Your spin on those facts was that it will nearly kill you. But wait, the negative effects are generally not life threatening at all, just temporary side effects if that.

And also, most if not all of the people in the study are already chemo patients.

[Oxonian]

Negative, you mean does it get you high? Yes.
"High" means abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and low blood pressure? Gee, that does sound like fun.

EDIT:
Your spin on those facts was that it will nearly kill you. But wait, the negative effects are generally not life threatening at all, just temporary side effects if that.
I think if you go back and look at what I actually wrote, I said no such thing. Moreover, hypotension most certainly can be life-threatening. I asked if there were "negative health effects." Is it really so difficult for you to concede that nausea and vomiting, experienced by only a fraction of people who use Marinol, are not pleasant? Conceding such a small point will not make everyone point and laugh at you. Take courage.

[Beelzebud]

OH MY GOD HAHAHA YOU'RE RIGHT

So up to 10% of people who consume Marinol suffer from abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and hypotension. So does Marinol have negative health effects or not?

Since when was 0% health risk the standard for "good" drugs?

Should we outlaw all drugs that have any adverse side effects in 1-10% of the population?

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

"High" means abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and low blood pressure? Gee, that does sound like fun.

Youre fucking hopeless you preachy sob.

NONE OF THE EFFECTS in the 3% to 10% are life threatening at all. But wait, possible abdominal pain, oh no.

I love how you voluntarily omit things by the way.

[Beelzebud]

I saw a documentary entitled Reefer Madness. After watching those junkies get all hopped up on their devil weed, there is no way in hell that should ever be legal in any reasonable country!

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

OH MY GOD HAHAHA YOU'RE RIGHT

So up to 10% of people who consume Marinol suffer from abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and hypotension. So does Marinol have negative health effects or not?

Noope not really...

Studies of nausea and vomiting related to cancer chemotherapy included 317 patients receiving dronabinol and 68 receiving placebo.

[Scaryfaced]

Alot of people prescriped Merinol already suffer from nausea and vomitting. One of THC's biggest medical uses is to prevent nausea, unfortunatly putting it in synthetic pill form doesn't work as directly. I've read many accounts of chemo patients who are only able to eat and keep their food down after smoking. Nausea would, in my opinion, be one of the last side effects you'd see in a THC derivative. Now in increase in heart rate and the like are proven scientific fact, but your claims of nausea and vomitting seem a little far fetched.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Alot of people prescriped Merinol already suffer from nausea and vomitting. One of THC's biggest medical uses is to prevent nausea, unfortunatly putting it in synthetic pill form doesn't work as directly. I've read many accounts of chemo patients who are only able to eat and keep their food down after smoking. Nausea would, in my opinion, be one of the last side effects you'd see in a THC derivative. Now in increase in heart rate and the like are proven scientific fact, but your claims of nausea and vomitting seem a little far fetched.

He keeps misquoting and taking things out of context...

[Beelzebud]

Thats what happens when you make your mind up, and don't let things like facts get in the way of your beliefs.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Thats what happens when you make your mind up, and don't let things like facts get in the way of your beliefs.

Which is exactly why Ive said what Ive said throughout this thread.

[torrefaction]

You guys are why people don't take the legalization argument seriously. You're acting like idiots in the face of facts. There are negative side effects to the synthetic drug. Big deal. I've never heard of any of these from marijuana itself. Stop arguing against facts, it's foolish. You guys are far more set in your beliefs than Ox is.

What side effects may I notice from taking dronabinol? (Back to top)
Side effects that you should report to your prescriber or health care professional as soon as possible:
•fast or irregular heartbeat (palpitations)
•fainting spells, lightheadedness
•hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that are not really there)
•panic reactions
•slurred speech

Side effects that usually do not require medical attention (report to your prescriber or health care professional if they continue or are bothersome):
•anxiety or nervousness
•confusion
•diarrhea
•drowsiness or dizziness
•impaired coordination
•irritability
•loss of memory
•mood changes (especially improved mood or euphoria)
•nightmares
•stomach upset

[Oxonian]

Since when was 0% health risk the standard for "good" drugs?

Should we outlaw all drugs that have any adverse side effects in 1-10% of the population?
No, absolutely not. We started by discussing whether people ought to consume marijuana recreationally. I pointed out, inter alia, that there was some evidence marijuana might have negative health effects, possibly including long-term damage. mr. murphy argued, reasonably I think, that highly potent marijuana might cause less long-term damage than weak marijuana. I conceded this sounded plausible, but sounded a note of caution: was THC itself entirely harmless?

Suicidal ShiZuru said that of course THC was completely harmless, because if it had any negative health effects at all, it would not be FDA-approved. I think that's ridiculous: there are plenty of FDA-approved drugs that have very serious side effects, up to and including (quoting now from one of my drugs) "sudden death." So pointing out that the FDA has approved a drug to treat serious problems like cancer hardly proves that the drug is perfectly safe for, say, recreational use.

The mere fact that THC has ill effects in some people is not dispositive on the question of whether it should be legal. It's not even necessarily dispositive on the question of whether you should use it recreationally. But it's a factor to consider. I like scallops, but if you handed me a plate of delicious-looking scallops and said, "There's a 10% chance this meal will give you food poisoning," I'd probably decide I didn't like scallops that much.

[Scaryfaced]

But scallops are delicious...

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Marinol is not purely THC. I was incorrect in saying "yes" flat out to "But are we convinced that THC itself has no negative health effects?". I should have just clarified then the harmlessness of the effects.

[Oxonian]

Marinol is not purely THC.
So your hypothesis is that the non-THC ingredients in Marinol are what caused the adverse reactions? Do you have any evidence for this, or is it divine revelation?

EDIT:
OK, we're cool.

[torrefaction]

Marinol is not purely THC.

See, this is why you fail. Marinol is in fact pure THC. What it's missing is numerous other canniboids that have potentially beneficial properties. But ALL marinol is in THC.

Marinol, a registered trademark of Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is the commercial name for a product containing dronabinol, which is the INN of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)