Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Besides presidential voting in November...Follow

#52 Nov 01 2012 at 4:24 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,089 posts
Stupid wrote:

How does alcohol behave? When does it behave differently?

ha ha you're dumb


I don't expect you to understand.

I see that you decided to use "you're" this time Smiley: lol

BrownDuck wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The belief that marijuana would benefit society is absurd, because it isn't the substance but the effect that people seek.


Same with Valium, Prozac, Xanax, Ativan, et al. I guess those don't benefit the people who use them correctly either, do they?

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#53 Nov 01 2012 at 4:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,136 posts
trickybeck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
You'd think they could of come up with a number somewhat less than 100 but still more than 1 for years to hold a contract.

Chicago leased one of its tollways to a Spanish/Australian firm for $2 billion for 99 years. And its parking meters to another private partnership for $1 billion for 75 years. 75 and 99 are between 1 and 100. And it's working out great, trust me!

And yet they send Blagojevich to jail for trying to lease one of our US Senate seats for only two years!

Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#54 Nov 01 2012 at 5:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
My experience has been pretty much the opposite, but I'm talking about pot heads, not the occasional smoker. Yes, they've been pretty laid back, but the only thing they seem interested in is smoking pot, talking about pot, growing pot, and finding new ways to get high off THC. They're VERY productive when it comes to these activities (I've seen people make bongs out of materials that would stump MacGyver, wax poetic about the best ways to grow different strains, and inject or bake pot into all sorts of food), but absolutely nothing else. Most of them don't really care about violence one way or the other (although they are way too relaxed to get violent), they only tend to get along with other pot heads, and they don't have the energy to waste on anything else that's not related to pot.


Drug abusers give casual drug users a bad name.

Sorta like Alcoholics & most everyone else.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#55 Nov 01 2012 at 6:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,252 posts
Elinda wrote:
Michiganite


Michigander
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#56 Nov 01 2012 at 7:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,961 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Yeah. I also be that you'll find almost all heavy drug users fall within the subset of drinkers (or even heavy drinkers). We don't ban alcohol because we worry that it makes someone "more likely" to use heroin.

All you've done is present a correlation. Yeah, I bet the vast majority of people hooked on heroin are open to smoking pot, have smoked it, do smoke it, etc. Doesn't mean smoking pot leads to it.

Is someone who smokes pot statistically more likely to do hard drugs? Sure. But that's not necessarily interesting in any particular way. It's as unsurprising as the fact that meat eaters are statistically more likely to eat dog than vegetarians are.

In my opinion, you're pointing at a symptom, not the cause. I don't think smoking pot leads to doing heroin. I do believe that something that could lead someone to smoke pot could lead them to do heroin. But I don't think making pot illegal would help there. Particularly because I seriously doubt fear of "the law" is going to be sufficient to ever stop someone on that path. Chances are (imo), someone who is on it already feels so alienated from society that the concept of law itself isn't something they're going to invest themselves in.

What I think making pot illegal does is force them to get used to hiding from society on the path to a worse addiction, making it even less likely that they'll seek help when they actually need it. The only thing I see the war on drugs doing is alienating people who desperately need help more and more, by ensuring they're as terrified as possible to seek treatment.


Let me start by saying that I agree with legalization in principle, but I disagree with this particular argument. If this was true, then no one would ever smoke pot because alcohol is legal. Clearly, people choose to use illegal intoxicants even when there are legal alternatives available. So the idea that by legalizing pot, we'd somehow reduce the number of people moving on to heroin (or whatever) is badly flawed. All we'd accomplish is to move the bar of what is legal a bit. So the guy who decides to try an illegal drug instead of legal alternatives (like alcohol and marijuana) would now move directly to cocaine, or meth.

At the end of the day, we do kinda set a somewhat arbitrary bar in terms of what is legal and what is not. There's a decent argument that setting that bar as low as possible means that for someone to get involved with the most harmful substances would require more "steps" involving illegal acts. Assuming we can agree that people don't normally progress directly from drinking a beer to shooting smack, then this is a valid argument. Knowing that what he's doing is illegal should provide some disincentive to progressing down a drug use track. I happen to believe that illegality absolutely does play a huge role in people's choices in this regard.


IMO, what would be far more helpful in this regard would not be legalizing the next step (marijuana currently), but decreasing dramatically the age at which the currently legal substance(s) may be purchased and consumed. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that very very very few people first start taking drugs in their 20 or 30s. Most people start in their teens and then progress to harder drugs. Often, this happens because it's easier to obtain illegal drugs than legal alternatives when you're under the age at which you can purchase those legal alternatives.

In my experience, what usually happens is that when people get into their 20s, one of two things happen. They either realize that they can drink socially and legally and go "wtf am I risking jail to do these other substances?" and thus quit using, or they're already so into the drugs their doing that alcohol just gets added to the list and they continue using. I just think a lot of addicts could be prevented from becoming addicts if they were able to scratch that itch earlier in a legal and relatively safe way. If you've been drinking since the age of 15 (or even earlier, and not in hiding), by the time the opportunity to use anything else comes along, there will already (hopefully) be a bit more responsibility adopted with regards to such substances and the choice between getting drunk legally and getting high illegally will not be made as often.


If such a change were made (and yes, it would involve social changes as well) then we can and should talk about looking at other substances. Again though, it requires looking at where that bar should be set and then making a decision as a society. I just think that a lot of people choose to bypass the real questions about this issue and just toss around half true "facts" about whatever substance they happen to think should be legalized. I think that's a silly way to approach the issue, and ultimately will lead to a slippery slope type result.


Quote:
As for the poor issue, statistically white middle class+ people are vastly more likely to use and sell all drugs than the poor and minorities are.


I'd really love to hear where these statistics come from. I don't think that's true at all.

Quote:
1. Space. Most minorities and poor live in small homes, possibly with extended family, and have no where they can go in the house to take drugs in secret. On average, a black kid isn't going to be able to light up a joint at home without his mom finding out. This leads to FAR more drug usage outside the home, in public areas, which drastically increases the chance of detection.

2. Increased police density. My town has a fair number of people (still fairly small--high school classes of 350 or so), but there's a lot of land. Kids here all smoked in the woods (and a lot of adults do too, to be fair). So besides the occasional cop who'd go in to check for kids, it was relatively safe to smoke. You light up in a city alley, and you have no clue how close you are to the nearest cop.


These could both certainly be factors, but I suspect that other socio-economic factors may be more significant here. Increased sense of lack of purpose or possibility of success in life tends to correlate with drug use (especially heavy drug use). Increased presence of gangs and their penchant to recruit the youth in their areas is another huge factor. Lack of alternative means of gaining money tend to make selling drugs appear more attractive. A dealer in a middle class neighborhood is much more likely to simply know a guy who has a supply, buys some, and then sells it to his friends, never ever dealing with anyone he doesn't know personally (making the possibility of arrest very near to zero). A dealer in a poor neighborhood is much more likely to be part of a larger drug distribution system, competing for customers (cause of the whole "no other sources of money" issue), dealing on the street, and willing to deal with pretty much anyone who walks up. I've known a few "dealers" living in middle class neighborhoods. None of them ever did it for the money.

Edited, Nov 1st 2012 6:24pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#57 Nov 01 2012 at 7:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,599 posts
Jophiel wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
Jailing people for marijuana use disproportionately targets and harms minorities and the poor.

The latent conservative in me says the real easy solution there is "Don't smoke weed".

The fact that people are willing to be incarcerated over it is probably part of what gives me cautious pause rather than just saying "***** it, weed for everyone!"

Shrug, there were millions of people using alcohol during prohibition as well, and we don't look at them with much disdain these days. Back then though, law enforcement was mainly targetting the bootleggers and not individual users.

The other problem is there there's tons of affluent people that use marijuana as well, but in those communities, cops don't pull people over with drug sniffing dogs, or get target people with raids, etc.

It's also the poverty that causes the increase in behaviors of crime and drug use; making the drug use itself a crime isn't fixing anything.

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#58 Nov 01 2012 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
As I said, disparity in how we treat classes of people with law enforcement and our judicial system is a great reason to address those disparities. I don't think those disparities are a good reason to knock the law off the book.

I don't have anything really against weed. I smoked it in college (I majored in art so let that be your guide) and, once I got out, the risk/reward wasn't there since I'd be facing the DuPage County Court instead of some student judicial board. But I don't really have a good reason to broadly legalize it either (I'd be all for medical exemptions with strict guides) and tend towards cautious about the notion. I wouldn't put any effort into stopping a legalization effort but I probably wouldn't sign their petition either.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#59 Nov 01 2012 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,599 posts

Okay, just making sure you weren't turning in your liberal card by claiming that "(oppressed group) deserves what they got because of their poor life choices!"
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#60 Nov 01 2012 at 8:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,961 posts
Nothing to do with legalization directly, but I also happen to think that people massively downplay the negatives associated with marijuana compared to alcohol. If the usage patterns of the two substances were more similar, a point could be made for marijuana being the same or even less harmful. The problem is that (in my experience at least), the usage pattern is *not* similar. Most people who consume alcohol regularly do so in the "couple beers/drinks after dinner, or social drinking at a party" mode. Those who don't we generally point to as having some form of drinking problem. So binge drinking or walking around with a flask taking a swig regularly is generally frowned upon.

Regular marijuana smokers tend to follow usage patterns much more akin to "drinking problem" consumers of alcohol. They tend to smoke *a lot* when partying, and as they build up a tolerance to it, this amount keeps increasing (much like alcoholics do). And they tend to carry it around with them all the time, lighting up and taking a few puffs whenever the opportunity arises (much like a guy with a flask might drink alcohol). While I suppose a few such users might exist, I've yet to meet anyone who regularly smoked pot, and simply kept some at home, smoking a small amount each evening as someone might consume alcohol. Just from my personal observations, pot smoking seems to always progress. The longer someone smokes, the more they smoke, the more frequently they smoke, and the more ridiculous the places/times they're willing to smoke become. As I mentioned earlier, these are behaviors we'd associate with alcoholism if the person were drinking instead of smoking.

Now this could certainly be social in nature. Perhaps if it were legal, more people would simply use marijuana as they'd use alcohol (in a non-addictive kind of way). But this most likely would be because of people who currently do not smoke pot because of the risk/reward factor Joph mentioned and currently don't have a drinking problem deciding to use marijuana in the same responsible manner they use alcohol. I suspect this still leaves the bulk of the current pot smokers (who tend to be those most fighting for legalization) having the same problems they have now. I guess I just don't share this kind of utopian outcome that pot smokers see resulting from legalization. I suspect we'll see a lot of problems with people having the equivalent of alcoholism with regard to marijuana use.


Whether that's better or worse is a matter of opinion and speculation. My personal reasons for supporting legalization (for a lot more than just marijuana) arise from my principles regarding personal freedom and personal responsibility. I have no issue at all giving people the freedom to take actions which, if abused, could be harmful to themselves, as long as *they* take responsibility for their choices and actions.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Nov 01 2012 at 8:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,961 posts
trickybeck wrote:

Okay, just making sure you weren't turning in your liberal card by claiming that "(oppressed group) deserves what they got because of their poor life choices!"


I'd argue that each individual deserves what they got because of their poor life choices, and whatever group labels we happen to apply to them should not affect that. The fact that there are groups which statistically suffer bad outcomes more than others is not automatically an indicator of some kind of oppression or innate unfairness in our legal system. I'll echo Joph by saying that if there *is* some kind of unfairness in our legal system, we should endeavor to address that unfairness rather than simply legalizing the crime they are suffering consequences for.

I'm assuming that no one would argue that since poor black people are statistically more likely to be convicted of murder than rich white people that we should make murder legal. If the problem is in the legal system, then deal with that problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Nov 01 2012 at 10:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
I'm not gonna rant, I just like this here though:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/larry-king-talks-marijuan_n_1938001.html

Quote:
Describing an interview he sat for with four chiefs of police, King said he asked the men: “If neither one were legal, marijuana or liquor, and you could only legalize one, what would you legalize? And they all answered at the same time, ‘Marijuana!’ Because they had never seen murder committed while someone’s under the influence of marijuana, and 80 percent of the homicides they investigated were alcohol-related.”
#63 Nov 01 2012 at 11:12 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
I'll echo Joph by saying that if there *is* some kind of unfairness in our legal system, we should endeavor to address that unfairness rather than simply legalizing the crime they are suffering consequences for.


I've never seen an asterisk used so passive aggressively before.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#64 Nov 02 2012 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,541 posts
You know what's funny? My late staunch Republican father was all in favor of legalizing everything, and taxing it heavily. (To be fair, he had a heavy Libertarian streak.)

His view was that it was the fastest way to cull the population of the "useless" types. Anyone who couldn't control themselves and OD'd, too bad. Society was better off without them. Same thing with seatbelts; he was against mandatory seat belt laws, because to him anyone stupid enough not to wear a seatbelt was too stupid to live anyway.

He had little sympathy for any addict as he quit smoking cold turkey when he learned my older sister had asthma. That, and his younger brother was an alcoholic, and my dad simply learned not to keep any alcohol stronger than egg nog in the house. If he had been able to bottle up his willpower and sell it, he could have been rich.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#65 Nov 02 2012 at 7:47 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,511 posts
catwho wrote:
Anyone who couldn't control themselves and OD'd, too bad. Society was better off without them. Same thing with seatbelts; he was against mandatory seat belt laws, because to him anyone stupid enough not to wear a seatbelt was too stupid to live anyway.
I'm okay with that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#66 Nov 02 2012 at 8:02 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
Eggnog is not an alcohol, it's a mix.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#67 Nov 02 2012 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
catwho wrote:
Anyone who couldn't control themselves and OD'd, too bad. Society was better off without them. Same thing with seatbelts; he was against mandatory seat belt laws, because to him anyone stupid enough not to wear a seatbelt was too stupid to live anyway.
I'm okay with that.


The problem I see with the idea is that it is VERY uncommon (bordering on impossible) that people's choices and behaviors do no affect others. Take the junkie who will OD. Well, even if his drugs are "legal but heavily taxed," to support his habit he might turn to robbery. And what about once he OD's? Someone needs to dispose of the body, track down the next of kin, etc. Even worse, what if he had a spouse, or kids, or owed money or something? All of those people will be affected as well.

Same with seat belt laws; if someone refuses to wear a seatbelt and gets in an accident caused by someone else, they could be injured much more severely. Now their choice not to wear a seat-belt has an effect on others: the person who rear-ended them now has to pay their medical expenses because the seat belt-less driver has a broken neck instead of just some minor vehicle damage. And if this happens commonly, insurance companies will start increasing the premiums for everyone else's car and medical insurance.

I understand (and at a gut emotional level, agree with) the sentiment, but the real world is seldom simple enough to cover such an idea.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#68 Nov 02 2012 at 9:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,541 posts
And you've just hit the nail on the head why Libertarianism really just doesn't work in a society with more than a dozen people.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#69 Nov 02 2012 at 2:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,961 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
The problem I see with the idea is that it is VERY uncommon (bordering on impossible) that people's choices and behaviors do no affect others. Take the junkie who will OD. Well, even if his drugs are "legal but heavily taxed," to support his habit he might turn to robbery.


As opposed to the lack of robberies committed by people supporting illegal drug habits?

Quote:
And what about once he OD's? Someone needs to dispose of the body, track down the next of kin, etc. Even worse, what if he had a spouse, or kids, or owed money or something? All of those people will be affected as well.


No more or less than if the same person died from any of a number of other non-drug related (but potentially stupid) acts. The same argument would compel us to make any action which might result in death or harm illegal as well. While I certainly agree that we have to put a line somewhere (cause I wrote that very thing earlier), it's important to note that this is not some kind of absolute argument. We can't know whether the drug addicts effects on his spouse and children and creditors over time would be better or worse depending on whether he lives or dies. So the safer course might be to not get directly involved and let nature take its course. The libertarian idea is sort of a "do no harm" position with regard to government.

Quote:
Same with seat belt laws; if someone refuses to wear a seatbelt and gets in an accident caused by someone else, they could be injured much more severely. Now their choice not to wear a seat-belt has an effect on others: the person who rear-ended them now has to pay their medical expenses because the seat belt-less driver has a broken neck instead of just some minor vehicle damage. And if this happens commonly, insurance companies will start increasing the premiums for everyone else's car and medical insurance.


That's a valid point. But can't we say the same about anything? So if I hit someone who drives a car without airbags, can I claim that I'm not responsible for some portion of his injuries because he didn't take sufficient precautions? Perhaps the better answer is for insurance companies to raise premiums for folks who don't have airbags or wear seatbelts. Industry wide, the problem will sort itself out.

Quote:
I understand (and at a gut emotional level, agree with) the sentiment, but the real world is seldom simple enough to cover such an idea.


True.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Nov 02 2012 at 3:01 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,089 posts
The only thing I see going for its legalization is that it's natural. Other than that, I see no reason why it should be legal.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#71 Nov 02 2012 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Rhode Island:
Question 1 Would ask voters if they want state-operated casino gambling at the Twin River slot venue.
Question 2 Would authorize casino games at Newport Grand.

And then a bunch of bond questions.

There's been a push for an Indian casino in the state for quite some time. I'm not necessarily opposed to allowing table games at the two slot-machine joints in the state, but it would certainly make it much more difficult to disallow an Indian casino (or just a third casino in general), and really I don't think we need three or more casinos in the state. The job-creation aspect is pretty compelling, however, and so I'm not really sure what I'll do.

____________________________
Banh
#72 Nov 02 2012 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
So if I hit someone who drives a car without airbags, can I claim that I'm not responsible for some portion of his injuries because he didn't take sufficient precautions?


To the extent to which you aren't negligent, yes. He's negligent for not taking the minimum safety precautions, you're negligent for hitting him. The blame is shared between you to the extent of which you're responsible. It might be that an airbag would have seriously reduced his injuries. It might be that he could have died even with them, etc.

It's like if someone walked onto a construction site without a hard hat and a worker, through an act of negligence, dropped a hammer on their head. The worker is still responsible for whatever negligence led to the damage, but he's likewise only responsible for the damage that would have been caused had the victim taken the appropriate precautions. The victim is at fault for not taking the requisite steps to protect themselves.

And, of course, all of this is within reasonable boundaries. Requiring someone to wear their seat belt is WELL within what would be considered reasonable. Requiring early warning systems, like those you see in the newest cars, obviously is not.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#73 Nov 02 2012 at 7:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,961 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And, of course, all of this is within reasonable boundaries. Requiring someone to wear their seat belt is WELL within what would be considered reasonable. Requiring early warning systems, like those you see in the newest cars, obviously is not.


There's a slippery slope aspect to this though. 50 years ago, requiring someone to wear a belt was not within what was considered reasonable. 30 years ago, requiring a belt was reasonable, but requiring airbags was not. Today, requiring a belt and airbags is reasonable, but requiring collision detection systems is not. Perhaps in 20 years, requiring belts, airbags, and collision detection will be reasonable, but automated avoidance systems will not be. Maybe in 50 years, automated stasis fields will be optional and in 80, it'll be required?

****. I'm not even saying that this progression as safety devices improve is a bad thing. I'm just pointing out that what is considered "reasonable" changes over time (and what is "obviously not" isn't really obvious at all). A side effect of this (in this particular case) is that we are altering our expectations about what others must reasonably do so as to minimize the damage we do to them when we make a mistake. So someday, a guy will walk up to another guy and shoot him in the head, then complain that it's not his fault the other guy died because he should have known to take his regeneration serum ahead of time. I mean, how stupid can you be for not doing that, right?

Edited, Nov 2nd 2012 6:57pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Nov 02 2012 at 8:59 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
And the fact that everyone likes to forget is that cars are extraordinarily powerful machines. You're responsible for a giant hunk of metal barreling around the world at 60+ mph. Yeah, the government has every right to put restrictions on what is, and is not, the acceptable use of such a machine.

What you are willfully ignoring is the fact that we are discussing negligence. When it's a case of one person intentionally harming another, whether or not the victim took precautions makes no difference. It might have reduced the damage done to them, but the fault lies entirely with the person who sought to cause them injury. If I intentionally slam my car into yours, it doesn't make any difference if I only intended to give you severe whiplash, not kill you. Whatever damage is caused belongs completely to me.

In cases of accidents, there is no intention to harm. All damage done to the people involved (and society at large) is the result of negligence. As such, each person is liable to the extent to which their negligence contributed.

Yes, what is "reasonable" is going to change over time. That's not an impressive statement, it's an obvious one. It is now reasonable to expect a person to have a telephone. A century ago, it wasn't. There are always going to be cases where it's hard to say whether or not an assumption is reasonable or not. This clearly isn't one of them.

What you are taking an issue with is not a particular of this case, it's a particular about the nature of law. Every legal system is under constant revision, because law is relative to the culture and time it is functioning in. In our culture and time, it's perfectly reasonable to expect someone to take the three seconds to buckle their seatbelt. Just like it's perfectly reasonable to expect that an adult without a disability be able to read and write.

The issue here is that you're intent on making this about a single person against the world. That's not the case here. This is about a society at large setting parameters for what does, and does not, constitute liability. And that is completely logical.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#75 Nov 02 2012 at 9:13 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,089 posts
I guess my response didn't quite make it.
BrownDuck wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

The belief that marijuana would benefit society is absurd, because it isn't the substance but the effect that people seek.



Same with Valium, Prozac, Xanax, Ativan, et al. I guess those don't benefit the people who use them correctly either, do they?

Define smoking marijuana correctly? Isn't the whole point of taking such said drugs is to get in a stupor phase? The closest similarity that is with the aforementioned drugs is to relieve pain, which is not the same thing as being in a stupefied state.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#76 Nov 02 2012 at 9:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Define smoking marijuana correctly?

Puff, puff, pass.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#77 Nov 03 2012 at 12:44 AM Rating: Default
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I guess my response didn't quite make it.
BrownDuck wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

The belief that marijuana would benefit society is absurd, because it isn't the substance but the effect that people seek.



Same with Valium, Prozac, Xanax, Ativan, et al. I guess those don't benefit the people who use them correctly either, do they?

Define smoking marijuana correctly? Isn't the whole point of taking such said drugs is to get in a stupor phase? The closest similarity that is with the aforementioned drugs is to relieve pain, which is not the same thing as being in a stupefied state.


For many years, I carried a one-hitter, or a fake metal half cigarette in a wooden dugout. Periodically throughout a day, I would pack some into the cigarette and take a hit or two from it holding the smoke to be more effective. Just enough of a buzz to slightly alter my mental state; not enough to incapacitate or slow my function enough to impact my work performance (or whatever activity I was pursuing at that time). Many friends I smoked with didn't want to get extremely high. It tends to make you slow and lazy and was boring as shit, imo.
#78 Nov 03 2012 at 6:59 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,089 posts
Paskil wrote:

For many years, I carried a one-hitter, or a fake metal half cigarette in a wooden dugout. Periodically throughout a day, I would pack some into the cigarette and take a hit or two from it holding the smoke to be more effective. Just enough of a buzz to slightly alter my mental state; not enough to incapacitate or slow my function enough to impact my work performance (or whatever activity I was pursuing at that time). Many friends I smoked with didn't want to get extremely high. It tends to make you slow and lazy and was boring as sh*t, imo.


That's a personal preference, because the desired end result varies per person. It's the same with alcohol. For some, it's just a buzz, for others it's waking up the next day trying to remember why you're missing a tooth.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 2:59pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#79 Nov 03 2012 at 7:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
I guess my response didn't quite make it.
BrownDuck wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

The belief that marijuana would benefit society is absurd, because it isn't the substance but the effect that people seek.

Same with Valium, Prozac, Xanax, Ativan, et al. I guess those don't benefit the people who use them correctly either, do they?

Define smoking marijuana correctly? Isn't the whole point of taking such said drugs is to get in a stupor phase? The closest similarity that is with the aforementioned drugs is to relieve pain, which is not the same thing as being in a stupefied state.
Only one of the four drugs listed there are for pain relief; the others are mood stabilizers. Your arguments here might carry a little weight if you, y'know, actualy knew what you were talking about. ALSO: Those four drugs listed there will certainly put you in a stupor state if used incorrectly, just like pot. Which was kind of BD's point.

Almalieque wrote:
Paskil wrote:

For many years, I carried a one-hitter, or a fake metal half cigarette in a wooden dugout. Periodically throughout a day, I would pack some into the cigarette and take a hit or two from it holding the smoke to be more effective. Just enough of a buzz to slightly alter my mental state; not enough to incapacitate or slow my function enough to impact my work performance (or whatever activity I was pursuing at that time). Many friends I smoked with didn't want to get extremely high. It tends to make you slow and lazy and was boring as sh*t, imo.
That's a personal preference, because the desired end result varies per person. It's the same with alcohol. For some, it's just a buzz, for others it's waking up the next day trying to remember why you're missing a tooth.
Have you smoked pot? Ever?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#80 Nov 03 2012 at 7:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Friar Bijou wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
That's a personal preference, because the desired end result varies per person. It's the same with alcohol. For some, it's just a buzz, for others it's waking up the next day trying to remember why you're missing a tooth.
Have you smoked pot? Ever?

No, but he once ate some of the worst hash brownies ever.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Nov 03 2012 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
That's a personal preference, because the desired end result varies per person. It's the same with alcohol. For some, it's just a buzz, for others it's waking up the next day trying to remember why you're missing a tooth.
Have you smoked pot? Ever?

No, but he once ate some of the worst hash brownies ever.


Those are called rocks, Jophiel, he was eating rocks.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#82 Nov 03 2012 at 8:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
That's a personal preference, because the desired end result varies per person. It's the same with alcohol. For some, it's just a buzz, for others it's waking up the next day trying to remember why you're missing a tooth.
Have you smoked pot? Ever?
Far be it from me to defend Alma, but that quote seems to be describing the range of what alcohol is for some people, in which case blacking out and losing a tooth is in the realm of possibilities.

That said, I know more people who toke for the slight buzz than who get ******* high, but there are those out there who do the latter. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I see it follow the alcohol curve, where when you start getting into it, you're getting trashed every time, but over time it becomes a more casual use. I don't know many people getting blackout drunk anymore, as the novelty wears off over time for most people; similarly, I don't know many people getting so high they can barely function anymore. Of course, this is all anecdotal.
____________________________
Banh
#83 Nov 03 2012 at 9:15 AM Rating: Good
I guess I read that as him implying that an excessive pot smoking session puts one into the same blackout-state that an excessive drinking session would. My bad.








You all know what my excuse is.Smiley: glare
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#84 Nov 03 2012 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
gbaji wrote:
There's a slippery slope aspect to this though.


Exactly! And stem cells are people... wait... Smiley: um

Anyway, I don't really care much either way, but something about how the Dutch aren't all dead yet, or whatever.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#85 Nov 03 2012 at 11:58 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,541 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Eggnog is not an alcohol, it's a mix.


You can buy it pre-mixed with whiskey around Christmas, which is what they did. (Along with some non-alcoholic stuff for us kids.)
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#86 Nov 03 2012 at 2:40 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,089 posts
Bijou wrote:
Only one of the four drugs listed there are for pain relief; the others are mood stabilizers. Your arguments here might carry a little weight if you, y'know, actualy knew what you were talking about. ALSO: Those four drugs listed there will certainly put you in a stupor state if used incorrectly, just like pot. Which was kind of BD's point.


Again, how is marijuana used correctly? Since you seem to "know what you're talking about", please enlighten me on the proper usage.

Bijou wrote:
Have you smoked pot? Ever?


I know that you have a problem seeing, but I'm sure that you can read.

1. It was a joke.... referencing The Hangover

2. I was exaggerating the buzz effect.

And to answer your question...I gave my troth to D.A.R.E back in elementary school that I tend to keep to my grave..Smiley: cool Intentionally putting yourself in a state where you might behave against your best judgement is against my best judgement.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#87 Nov 03 2012 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There's a slippery slope aspect to this though.


Exactly! And stem cells are people... wait... Smiley: um

Anyway, I don't really care much either way, but something about how the Dutch aren't all dead yet, or whatever.
there's fewer peope smoking pot than in the states as well iirc. Can't look it up atm because i'm on my phone.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#88 Nov 03 2012 at 4:23 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
American drug usage is among the highest in the world, I know. Have no clue what the breakdown is by drug, but I'm fairly certain of that fact.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#89 Nov 03 2012 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Again, how is marijuana used correctly? Since you seem to "know what you're talking about", please enlighten me on the proper usage?
As in all thing, in moderation.
Depends on why your using it as well, I suppose. For myself, up until 18 months ago I smoked 2 puffs of high quality weed once a week. Yes, it was a pleasant high, but more importantly it provided huge relief to my chronic pain issues that lasted for days afterwards.

Almalieque wrote:
1. It was a joke.... referencing The Hangover.
OK, that was an enormous /whooooooosh on my part.Smiley: bah



Now that we've got that out of the way: Since you have admited to never using marijuana, please never again make any claims as to its effects.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#90 Nov 03 2012 at 5:50 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,089 posts
Bijou wrote:
As in all thing, in moderation.


But what is "moderation". Wouldn't that depend on the intention of the usage? If the purpose is to get wasted, wouldn't that be using it moderately?

Bijou wrote:
Now that we've got that out of the way: Since you have admited to never using marijuana, please never again make any claims as to its effects.


Admitted? Is this an alternative universe? There's a difference in pain relief and being in a stupor, they are not one in the same. Unless you can prove that your chronic pain couldn't be relieved by any other substance, then you were more than likely *partly* using marijuana for it's high effect and not just pain relief.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#91 Nov 03 2012 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Bijou wrote:
As in all thing, in moderation.
But what is "moderation". Wouldn't that depend on the intention of the usage? If the purpose is to get wasted, wouldn't that be using it moderately?
Get back to me after you look up what "moderation" means. Look, I get that you want to argue for the sake of arguing, but can you not act like an ignorant jackass while doing it?

Bijou wrote:
Now that we've got that out of the way: Since you have admited to never using marijuana, please never again make any claims as to its effects.


Admitted? Is this an alternative universe?
you wrote:
And to answer your question...I gave my troth to D.A.R.E back in elementary school that I tend to keep to my grave..
I know I'm blind, but you wrote that, not me.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#92 Nov 03 2012 at 6:53 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,089 posts
Bijou wrote:
Get back to me after you look up what "moderation" means. Look, I get that you want to argue for the sake of arguing, but can you not act like an ignorant jackass while doing it?


This is a legitimate argument. People eat in moderation because we need to eat and eating unnecessarily does more harm than good. People take legal medicine at moderation because they use medicine to alleviate the pain and too much does more harm than good.

What is the purpose of smoking marijuana that can't be duplicated by a legal drug that doesn't give you a buzz?

Bijou wrote:
I know I'm blind, but you wrote that, not me.



The point was that "not doing drugs" is not something you tend to "admit to" in the same sense that we admit to things in society. You make it seem like not smoking marijuana is like being a virgin.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#93 Nov 03 2012 at 7:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
You make it seem like not smoking marijuana is like being a virgin.

Much worse. Losing your virginity requires convincing someone to sleep with you. Any ugly sloth can still buy weed.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#94 Nov 03 2012 at 7:07 PM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
Intentionally putting yourself in a state where you might behave against your best judgement is against my best judgement.


Pot effects different people differently. The argument is that, used in moderation, pot isn't really any more harmful than alcohol or tobacco; so what's the point in wasting as much money as we do in this country arresting & incarcerating folks for using it? Especially when we can tax it. So many people already have or do smoke pot in this country that it's silly to criminalize it. The only "real" argument I hear anymore about keeping it illegal usually involves, "It leads to other drugs!".

So does alcohol & nicotine.

While pot can be habit forming, it isn't addictive like nicotine or alcohol. The medical marijuana arguments is a little different, as marijuana doesn't really "solve" many medical issues (except glaucoma, appetite, sleep, & nausea, I think). What it does do is make you not care about the symptoms as much.

Downside? It kills ambition.

Upside: It makes the mundane more amusing.

Alma wrote:
You make it seem like not smoking marijuana is like being a virgin.


It seems that people whom have never tried pot are boring squares with sticks up their asses that are going to have a hard time getting laid by anyone other than like-minded boring squares with sticks up their asses whom probably want a ring on it before they'll let you in vaginally.

Which, odds are, makes you a virgin & explains so much about where you're coming from with your "arguments". You're incredibly naive!



Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 9:11pm by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#95 Nov 03 2012 at 7:08 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,089 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You make it seem like not smoking marijuana is like being a virgin.

Much worse. Losing your virginity requires convincing someone to sleep with you. Any ugly sloth can still buy weed.


But why would want to smoke marijuana?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#96 Nov 03 2012 at 7:10 PM Rating: Good
******
21,718 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The point was that "not doing drugs" is not something you tend to "admit to" in the same sense that we admit to things in society. You make it seem like not smoking marijuana is like being a virgin.


You really need to keep a pocket dictionary or something. Your continued abuse of the English language is inexcuseable. The word "admit" does not carry a negative connotation as you assume it should. You're a dunce, and nobody here thinks any more of you.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#97 Nov 03 2012 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
What else is an ugly sloth gonna do? Ain't gonna be having ***...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#98 Nov 03 2012 at 8:03 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,089 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The point was that "not doing drugs" is not something you tend to "admit to" in the same sense that we admit to things in society. You make it seem like not smoking marijuana is like being a virgin.


You really need to keep a pocket dictionary or something. Your continued abuse of the English language is inexcuseable. The word "admit" does not carry a negative connotation as you assume it should. You're a dunce, and nobody here thinks any more of you.



Uhh... Oh really? I guess I didn't realize that when I said that in the very sentence that you quoted. Don't project your stupidity on me.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#99 Nov 03 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,614 posts
Almalieque wrote:
But why would want to smoke marijuana?

"How is Babby Formed?"

haha your dumb is showing through
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#100 Nov 03 2012 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,614 posts
Almalieque wrote:
But why would want to smoke marijuana?


Or were you stoned when you posted that?

Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 7:41pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#101 Nov 03 2012 at 8:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,089 posts
stupid wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
But why would want to smoke marijuana?

"How is Babby Formed?"

haha your dumb is showing through


Smiley: lol
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 60 All times are in CST