| Re: weed [message #272641 is a reply to message #272284] |
Wed, 11 July 2007 16:22   |
 |
Dave Anderson
Messages: 1953
Registered: December 2004
Location: United States
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Fine, I'll support weed legalization if you legalize killing, murder, rape, child abuse, pyro maniac arson, dog fighting, illegal street racing, and bombing local shopping malls.
|
Don't be an idiot.
David Anderson
Founder, Software Consultant
DCOM Productions
Microsoft Partner (MSP)
[Updated on: Wed, 11 July 2007 16:23] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: weed [message #272643 is a reply to message #272284] |
Wed, 11 July 2007 16:23 |
 |
futura83
Messages: 1285
Registered: July 2006
Location: England
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Viva la Resistance! |
|
|
I wouldn't be against people smoking weed.
So long as they have to have a pernit, can only have so much per day, and can only do it in private...
This is a signature. Reading this is wasting your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: weed [message #272646 is a reply to message #272284] |
Wed, 11 July 2007 16:25 |
|
Dave Anderson
Messages: 1953
Registered: December 2004
Location: United States
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
If they do it in their own home, why would you care? Once they start smoking the substance in public, that's where the problem comes into play.
David Anderson
Founder, Software Consultant
DCOM Productions
Microsoft Partner (MSP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: weed [message #272664 is a reply to message #272284] |
Wed, 11 July 2007 19:22 |
|
Dave Anderson
Messages: 1953
Registered: December 2004
Location: United States
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Seven is a really cool number.
David Anderson
Founder, Software Consultant
DCOM Productions
Microsoft Partner (MSP)
|
|
|
|
| Re: weed [message #272695 is a reply to message #272284] |
Thu, 12 July 2007 01:37 |
MexPirate
Messages: 883
Registered: March 2006
Location: UK
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Hey Blue, why don't you actually bring some knowledge or ideas to the debate before spouting mindless bullshit.
To anyone whos argument is "I don't want to breath pot smoke" try reading my earlier post - I don't think anyone is saying it should be allowed in public places where you sensitive people might come in contact with it, private property or specially licensed premesis designed for the purpose. If it's in private property then it's up to the owner to dictate if it's allowed, a cafe would be FOR smoking weed if you don't like it don't go near the place (regulations stating adequate ventilation/air conditioning etc could also be enforced to protect any public walking past from the deadly fumes)
Don't even try and say "but people will smell of smoke" tough shit, when I get on a train and some fat bastard stinks of sweat I deal with it, it's not nice but it isn't doing me any harm, neither is the SMELL of smoke on somebody.
NOBODY IN THIS THREAD WHO SUPPORTS THE LEGALIZATION OF WEED HAS SAID IT IS GOOD FOR YOU, WE ARE AWARE THAT IT IS DAMAGING OUR HEALTH - WE JUST CONSIDER IT AN ACCEPTABLE RISK FOR THE PERCEIVED BENEFITS.
| Quote: |
1. Most likely reduce the cost to users, who are currently getting ripped off
2. Take billions of pounds away from criminals, people who also deal in other illegal activities
3. Generate billions of pounds of tax revenue that would more than cover any costs of regulating the drug, providing support to people who want to stop using it and any costs caused by health problems.
4. Improve the quality and remove any harmfull additives that might be present in illegal weed
5. Allow for regulation - perhaps forcing users to register and only have access to a certain amount, perhaps even being "prescribed" it to ensure that smokers are acting responsibly with it and can't just walk in to a shop and buy as much as they want.
6. Aid sufferers of diseases like MS who have to endure immense pain that can be effectively reduced by smoking weed - currently people who try to help these people are getting arrested for dealing (despite distributing it for free in various forms such as chocolate or gel)
7. Alternative safer ways to take weed would become available, alternatives to smoking such as weed foodstuffs, gels etc for people who want to relax but don't want to kill their lungs.
It should be (as smoking/drinking) against the law to smoke anywhere in public apart from specially licensed cafe's, meaning that people would continue to smoke in the privacy of their own home.
The only downside I can see to this is that potentially a few people who would not normally take drugs might be tempted due to it being legal - I don't see that can really be that many people though considering how widespread it's current usage is.
|
Somebody feel free to either come up with another valid argument against legalising weed that doesn't have a simple solution or come up with some constructive critisism of the points I have raised for it being legal.
It's a mexican pirate .... F*ck a dog by Blink 182
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: weed [message #272735 is a reply to message #272512] |
Thu, 12 July 2007 04:52 |
 |
Jecht
Messages: 3156
Registered: September 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 11 July 2007 09:31 |
Like MexPirate said, specially licensed businesses should allow for marijuana smoking in their restaurants, just like there are alcohol licenses.
As for everybody griping about the health concerns... YOU'RE NOT FORCED TO BE AROUND IT. The high-horsery STILL amazes me.
Jecht, it should be legal. If you don't like drugs, here's a novel idea: DON'T DO DRUGS. Just because your morals stop you from participating doesn't mean everybody else has to stop because of you and a few others' high-horsery. If I want to damage my body, it's my right to do so.
|
By all means, I'm all for the self-damaging of morons. What I'm not for is an extra agent out on the street that clouds the senses and judgement of individuals to the point where it could harm me or my family. I'm also against exposing to children that this practice is acceptable. America's values are all ready down the shitter, i'd rather not be accociated with something that could and would make them worse. Call it high-horsery if you want, but it's wrong to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: weed [message #272764 is a reply to message #272559] |
Thu, 12 July 2007 07:56 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| BlueThen wrote on Wed, 11 July 2007 14:22 |
You guys practically know nothing about weed or other drugs. Just google them and you'll see some of the effects.
If you think weed is good for you, then you're honestly a dumb-ass.
|
Good for you? Probably not. But bad for you? Continuing studies are showing that THC (not weed per se) doesn't do anything adverse to you physically. In fact as it stands, the only people who seem to be adversely affected by THC are those without the psychological fortitude to stop. It is experimentally shown not to be chemically addictive, but in many cases it is extremely psychologically addictive. The irony is that because the line of psycho-addiction is so blurry, most stoners have no idea they are in fact dependent on it. I would imagine that a decent percentage of users on this board have some kind of psychological addiction to THC and are completely oblivious to it. Pound for pound, THC requires virtually hundreds of times the dosage as opposed to say alcohol before a lethal dose is a reality.
That said, marijuana and THC are two completely different things. Stoners and non-smokers alike make the misconception frequently enough that because studies show that THC isn't necessarily bad for you, that marijuana must also be harmless. That simply isn't the case. They think that smoking the plant is harmless when in fact it is extremely harmful. Filtration supposedly helps but I personally doubt it. The irony is that if stoners simply ate the plant, it would be as harmless as consuming just the THC by itself. I would further imagine that chemical addiction is a real possibility when you smoke the stuff; not because of the THC, but because of the hundreds of other chemicals which are oxiding and staying in your lungs while you hold your breath.
As for legislation, I stand by what I said before. I'm proven to be competent and able to handle both small arms, large arms, and automatic firearms by the government. But I'm not allowed to own a machinegun for some reason. I personally think if I don't intend to hurt anyone with it then I should be able to own one because I want one. I don't NEED it by any means, but on that note stoners don't necessarily NEED weed. They're not necessaily hurting anyone when they use it, and if they are competent then they won't necessarily hurt themselves. But here's the problem. If I am allowed to own a machine gun, then all you guys need to do is complete a standard firearms safety course and complete your basic training with the army and you'll be as qualified as me. But that doesn't stop someone from abusing the now-widely accessable legal system. In fact, it just gives potential criminals a means to an ends. On the same note, while most of you here will not be a danger smoking pot, there just needs to be one of you to go for a drive while high to put your mother, father, or siblings in mortal danger. And it would've been utterly legal and mindnumbingly easy for you to get the pot in the first place. Alcohol has the exact same problem. I hardly see why, in the spirit of 'feeling good', I should support putting another abusive substance into the pool of legality. There are millions of ways to feel good on this planet that don't involve intoxication; get out of your parent's basement and go for a walk.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: weed [message #272809 is a reply to message #272764] |
Thu, 12 July 2007 10:20 |
MexPirate
Messages: 883
Registered: March 2006
Location: UK
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Javaxcx wrote on Thu, 12 July 2007 15:56 |
| BlueThen wrote on Wed, 11 July 2007 14:22 |
You guys practically know nothing about weed or other drugs. Just google them and you'll see some of the effects.
If you think weed is good for you, then you're honestly a dumb-ass.
|
Good for you? Probably not. But bad for you? Continuing studies are showing that THC (not weed per se) doesn't do anything adverse to you physically. In fact as it stands, the only people who seem to be adversely affected by THC are those without the psychological fortitude to stop. It is experimentally shown not to be chemically addictive, but in many cases it is extremely psychologically addictive. The irony is that because the line of psycho-addiction is so blurry, most stoners have no idea they are in fact dependent on it. I would imagine that a decent percentage of users on this board have some kind of psychological addiction to THC and are completely oblivious to it. Pound for pound, THC requires virtually hundreds of times the dosage as opposed to say alcohol before a lethal dose is a reality.
That said, marijuana and THC are two completely different things. Stoners and non-smokers alike make the misconception frequently enough that because studies show that THC isn't necessarily bad for you, that marijuana must also be harmless. That simply isn't the case. They think that smoking the plant is harmless when in fact it is extremely harmful. Filtration supposedly helps but I personally doubt it. The irony is that if stoners simply ate the plant, it would be as harmless as consuming just the THC by itself. I would further imagine that chemical addiction is a real possibility when you smoke the stuff; not because of the THC, but because of the hundreds of other chemicals which are oxiding and staying in your lungs while you hold your breath.
As for legislation, I stand by what I said before. I'm proven to be competent and able to handle both small arms, large arms, and automatic firearms by the government. But I'm not allowed to own a machinegun for some reason. I personally think if I don't intend to hurt anyone with it then I should be able to own one because I want one. I don't NEED it by any means, but on that note stoners don't necessarily NEED weed. They're not necessaily hurting anyone when they use it, and if they are competent then they won't necessarily hurt themselves. But here's the problem. If I am allowed to own a machine gun, then all you guys need to do is complete a standard firearms safety course and complete your basic training with the army and you'll be as qualified as me. But that doesn't stop someone from abusing the now-widely accessable legal system. In fact, it just gives potential criminals a means to an ends. On the same note, while most of you here will not be a danger smoking pot, there just needs to be one of you to go for a drive while high to put your mother, father, or siblings in mortal danger. And it would've been utterly legal and mindnumbingly easy for you to get the pot in the first place. Alcohol has the exact same problem. I hardly see why, in the spirit of 'feeling good', I should support putting another abusive substance into the pool of legality. There are millions of ways to feel good on this planet that don't involve intoxication; get out of your parent's basement and go for a walk.
|
Please can you make more posts in this forum.
I understand your point about stupid people gaining access to it and it's a compelling argument - my view however is that the benefits of legalising it outway the disadvantages and punishment for using whilst driving should be just as strict as are applied to alcohol (I am aware that wasn't your point, merely adding a comment)
Problem is I enjoy the action of smoking as much as the high itself 
I am pretty confident that I can say I am not dependant or addicted on it though, when I can afford it I smoke some probably 5 days a week - but equally I can go without it and regularly do for weeks at a time, I stopped smoking it for about 9 months straight simply because I was living with my girlfriend who didn't smoke and I virtually always smoke with friends.
It's a mexican pirate .... F*ck a dog by Blink 182
|
|
|
|
| Re: weed [message #272819 is a reply to message #272598] |
Thu, 12 July 2007 11:28 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Wed, 11 July 2007 15:58 |
Which is why serving food and driving require a license to prove that you know what you are doing... or at least have sufficient coverage to rectify a situation should you actually harm someone.
|
maybe cannabis should too...
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: weed [message #272842 is a reply to message #272284] |
Thu, 12 July 2007 14:37 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I agree with everything Java said in this thread.
I'm also completely for stupid people poisoning and maiming themselves, especially to the point where they can no longer contribute to the gene pool (and no, I'm not saying that weed makes you impotent, I'm just in favor of stupid people making themselves impotent in any way they can manage it).
I have a problem with people who are high driving well under or over the speed limit and/or recklessly and putting my life and others lives in danger.
I have a problem with stoners who are too lazy to get a job so they steal from other people to get things to sell in order to buy more drugs.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: weed [message #272850 is a reply to message #272284] |
Thu, 12 July 2007 15:44 |
Romaner
Messages: 355
Registered: January 2007
Location: edmonton, canada
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
its my weed and i will smoke it where i want to smoke it and i will drive to my dealer to get more weed once im done. and furthermore if my neighbour doesnt like it i will go through his shit and find something i can get some money for so i can get more weed! and then i will go get a knife and rob someone to get some money or jewellery to get more weed.
if this is what you people think of pot smokers you are way off.
now if you substitute the word weed with crack cocaine... then you got it dead on!
i myself am a responsible adult (or so i would like to think tyvm) and even though i enjoy a puff or two in some occasions (like weekends or parties) it doesnt mean i should be slapped with a ticket for it. or worse taken to jail over it. in every culture and society there will be those that are prone to addiction and thus substance abuse. but basing the desicion on those few will not stop them from getting their fix. they are addicted they dont care if its legal or not... and i have never seen people go to extremes for weed. i mean its not that addictive that you have the shakes or anything. i smoked weed on a daily basis while in highschool. and when i went into college i cut it to once a week. when came graduation i quit for 3 months just to be as sober as i can for my finals and to pass any drug tests i thought i would need in order to get a job.
and it wasnt that hard. all you have to do is occupy yourself and close that time gap where before you would be getting high with doing something else. for me it was taekwondoe and soccer.
its all in your head. if you are stupid and cant control yourself you will be a menase to society in one form or another and making pot illegal will not affect you...
[Updated on: Thu, 12 July 2007 15:45] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: weed [message #273019 is a reply to message #272842] |
Fri, 13 July 2007 14:40 |
 |
ron paul
Messages: 103
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Thu, 12 July 2007 16:37 |
I agree with everything Java said in this thread.
I'm also completely for stupid people poisoning and maiming themselves, especially to the point where they can no longer contribute to the gene pool (and no, I'm not saying that weed makes you impotent, I'm just in favor of stupid people making themselves impotent in any way they can manage it).
I have a problem with people who are high driving well under or over the speed limit and/or recklessly and putting my life and others lives in danger.
I have a problem with stoners who are too lazy to get a job so they steal from other people to get things to sell in order to buy more drugs.
|
You don't get stoners stealing to fund their weed habit (unless previously behaving like that). Yeah maybe on HEROIN where they get so fucked up they are incapacitated for hours at a time and only get up to set up their next fix once they feel the HARSH CRAVINGS kick in. But weed isn't overly expensive and it doesn't impair you so much you can't work a part time job, it can even help out in a grinding job like retail (stacking shelves and the like).
I mean do you steal to fund your food budget or coffee budget? Assuming you drink a lot of coffee (ie: addicted to caffeine) you aren't driven to steal to get more coffee. Weed can be applied to a similar context. So lets get rid of that retarded misconception a lot of you seem to have.
edit: Also every heavy stoner I know is employed and work hard at what they do. Keep in mind a lot of stoners are only stoners while they are teenagers then cut down on what they smoke when they move on to a higher paying job. There are a lot of IT 'stoners' out there I know of who manage servers and networks.
this is more common than the self-diagnosis of asperger's in the goon population how is it obsCURE FUCKKK
[Updated on: Fri, 13 July 2007 14:43] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
