• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Aaron, The "Pot smoking, sinner."

And what about ingesting marijuana? No carcinogens when taken orally.

That movie is very interesting too, Kathy. It's a little over an hour, but I learned a lot in that viewing. I'm more pro-pot than ever after that (and this thread).

Obviously, tobacco would be illegal in chai tea land. And skateboarding and other recreational activities. My point to Vicky is the gray areas. At the end of my life, I can't imagine sitting in my rocking chair and reflecting on things I should have stopped other people from doing. Life is so much easier when you live and let live. You might find find people very different from you enlightening and entertaining. Would the Beatles ever have progressed past "I Wanna Hold Your Hand?" had they never smoked a lid? Perhaps, but I'd wager that in weed, some folks find inspiration and creativity. That's not going to make me run out and buy some, but what is your reason to deny someone else what makes them happy?
 
Once again, many laws are based on morals. So yeah, the government IS forcing it's morals on you right this minute. Murder is illegal because your government finds it "wrong". Just "wrong". They are morally opposed to it.

If we tried alcohol prohibition, it would involve opening up places for addicts and even casual drinkers to go to find alternate methods of coping or just hanging out. That, in turn, would create jobs. People to build the places, people to work there and keep it clean, counselors and therapists, etc.

I know full well that not everyone would follow the law. That's true with ANY law. Why should we let that discourage us from making one?
 
Drinking until they are so drunk they can't even talk makes some people happy. And while they are this drunk, suppose they get into a car. Well, we should just let them, right? because it makes them happy? I don't think so.

When taken orally, there is no chance of lung cancer correct. I am not sure about any other negative effects, but if there are little to none then I see no problem with it.
 
If we tried alcohol prohibition, it would involve opening up places for addicts and even casual drinkers to go to find alternate methods of coping or just hanging out. That, in turn, would create jobs. People to build the places, people to work there and keep it clean, counselors and therapists, etc.

I just don't think it would go down like this. I don't think people are just going to be hunky-dory and "hey good chap let's go to the alcohol alternative sanctuary to partake in some parcheesi".

But anyway, who is going to fund these places to keep people clean, to hire counselors, to help people find alternatives, etc..etc... The alcohol industry is self funded through sales. The only thing I could see funding your proposed alcohol alternative/reahabilitation places are increased taxes...which is again not going to go over well.
 
Drinking until they are so drunk they can't even talk makes some people happy. And while they are this drunk, suppose they get into a car. Well, we should just let them, right? because it makes them happy? I don't think so.

No, that's why it is illegal to drive while under the influence.

What I DO think is that drunken driving laws need to be harsher (at least in Wisconsin where they are basically a slap on the wrist).
 

"Once again, many laws are based on morals. So yeah, the government IS forcing it's morals on you right this minute. Murder is illegal because your government finds it "wrong". Just "wrong". They are morally opposed to it."


But we already discussed that laws based on morals are only widely accepted by almost everyone when they ALSO involve a victim (not just the person "committing" the crime, but a real, "innocent", victim). "Victimless" crimes are already widely ignored, or are very controversial, (or even legal in some places) yet you advocate adding more.

"Drinking until they are so drunk they can't even talk makes some people happy. And while they are this drunk, suppose they get into a car. Well, we should just let them, right? because it makes them happy? I don't think so."

And we already discussed legislating the BEHAVIOR (drunk driving or robbery to buy drugs, for example) as opposed to regulating the ITEM. I doubt that anyone in this discussion is FOR drunk driving (or driving under influence of any substance that might cause accidents), even if they are pro legalization. So that argument is not really part of the debate.
 
Drinking until they are so drunk they can't even talk makes some people happy.
While that's a poor life choice, it is (rightfully) legal.
And while they are this drunk, suppose they get into a car.
This puts others at risk so it is (rightfully) illegal.
Well, we should just let them, right? because it makes them happy? I don't think so.
If they are driving on their own land, not public roads, sure. It's stupid, but there is no law against stupid. For example, I can shoot my own car all I want. There is no law prohibiting damaging my own property (or body).
When taken orally, there is no chance of lung cancer correct. I am not sure about any other negative effects, but if there are little to none then I see no problem with it.

So you really would let people eat pot but not smoke it? I just don't understand. Why not let people do what they choose with their body and be responsible for the consequences of their actions?
 
I have yet to see a study that proves pot smoking causes cancer. I have seen many that show no link. There are many things that cause cancer. Gasoline is a carcinogen. Should we pass a law that everyone filling their tank needs to wear gloves and a respirator? The vast majority of people who smoke pot, and drink, don't ever hurt anyone else because of it.
I'm curious as to what you enjoy doing, Vicky. I'll bet I could come up with reasons as strong as yours why some of them should be illegal. At least using the reasoning I've been hearing. I don't see that the government has any business tellin anyone what they can do as long as it doesn't endanger others. Once you cross that line, then the law can take over, but you can't keep someone from doing something because they might abuse it. Maybe cell phones should be illegal. They may cause cancer, and you might talk on it while driving and kill someone. You might even call in a bomb threat, so perhaps all phones should be illegal.
That is the road to totalitarianism.
 
I have yet to see a study that proves pot smoking causes cancer. I have seen many that show no link. There are many things that cause cancer. Gasoline is a carcinogen. Should we pass a law that everyone filling their tank needs to wear gloves and a respirator? The vast majority of people who smoke pot, and drink, don't ever hurt anyone else because of it.
I'm curious as to what you enjoy doing, Vicky. I'll bet I could come up with reasons as strong as yours why some of them should be illegal. At least using the reasoning I've been hearing. I don't see that the government has any business tellin anyone what they can do as long as it doesn't endanger others. Once you cross that line, then the law can take over, but you can't keep someone from doing something because they might abuse it. Maybe cell phones should be illegal. They may cause cancer, and you might talk on it while driving and kill someone. You might even call in a bomb threat, so perhaps all phones should be illegal.
That is the road to totalitarianism.


I am pretty sure it is not the pot that causes cancer, but the smoke itself. The body was not made to breathe smoke.
 
I have yet to see a study that proves pot smoking causes cancer. I have seen many that show no link. There are many things that cause cancer. Gasoline is a carcinogen. Should we pass a law that everyone filling their tank needs to wear gloves and a respirator? The vast majority of people who smoke pot, and drink, don't ever hurt anyone else because of it.
I'm curious as to what you enjoy doing, Vicky. I'll bet I could come up with reasons as strong as yours why some of them should be illegal. At least using the reasoning I've been hearing. I don't see that the government has any business tellin anyone what they can do as long as it doesn't endanger others. Once you cross that line, then the law can take over, but you can't keep someone from doing something because they might abuse it. Maybe cell phones should be illegal. They may cause cancer, and you might talk on it while driving and kill someone. You might even call in a bomb threat, so perhaps all phones should be illegal.
That is the road to totalitarianism.

Ok, I'll give you 6 links. But like I already said, you'll probably be able to provide just as many saying that it DOESN'T cause cancer. Honestly, there hasn't been a huge amount of research on the subject since it is "taboo". But sometimes the people who DO research it don't want to believe to can cause cancer so they choose small subject groups that haven't been smoking long enough to see any signs of cancer.

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0598.html
"One thing to keep in mind, though, is that marijuana smokers usually inhale more deeply and keep the smoke in their lungs for a longer period than tobacco smokers. It is possible that these behaviors increase the lung's exposure to the chemical by-products of smoking. Burning marijuana for smoking releases many substances other than THC, the ingredient which produces the drug's psychoactive effects. THC does not appear to be carcinogenic, but some of the other chemicals released by both marijuana and tobacco smoke are problematic. These include tar, carbon monoxide, and cyanide. One known carcinogen, benzopyrene, though found in both types of smoke, seems to be greater in pot smoke. "

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm
"Scientists believe that marijuana can be especially harmful to the lungs because users often inhale the unfiltered smoke deeply and hold it in their lungs as long as possible. Therefore, the smoke is in contact with lung tissues for long periods of time, which irritates the lungs and damages the way they work. Marijuana smoke contains some of the same ingredients in tobacco smoke that can cause emphysema and cancer. In addition, many marijuana users also smoke cigarettes; the combined effects of smoking these two substances creates an increased health risk. "

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-08-18/...arettes-smoke-tobacco-cigarettes?_s=PM:HEALTH
"The study also showed that habitual smoking of tobacco, marijuana or crack cocaine in combination could potentially lead to more cancerous alterations in the molecular makeup of cellular structure than single smoking alone."

While I do not agree with this site saying that medical marijuana is a "fraud" it does provide evidence that smoking it can cause cancer.

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/medical-marijuana-causes-cancer/
"Epidemiological studies made during the past 30 years have found that marijuana causes lung damage and probably cancer. The new study took blood samples, measured lung function and tested non-smokers and smokers for antioxidant markers."

http://www.ktvu.com/news/19805433/detail.html
"Spokesman Sam Delson says the state agency found marijuana smoke contains 33 of the same harmful chemicals as tobacco smoke. Delson says the findings came from a review of more than 30 scientific papers."

And finally, a word from the Center for Disease Control And Prevention (CDC)
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001143.htm
"impaired lung function similar to that found in cigarette smokers. Indications are that more serious effects, such as cancer and other lung disease, follow extended use."

As for what I enjoy doing the list is as follows
Drawing
Being on the computer
Watching TV
Hanging out with my boyfriend
Thinking of stories/characters/silly stuff
Caring for my pets
Talking to people about pets
Cooking

@ZoologyGirl Haha XD Parcheesi. I think the service should be at least offered, just in case.

@ Kathy, true, but I still think we should protect people from themselves in some cases. It just makes more sense to me.

@elrojo, I'd let people eat it instead of smoking it because it's less harmful that way, if not totally harmless. It's not about not wanting people to feel high, or feel good because they're high. It's not about controlling everyone's actions all the time or making it illegal just because I personally hate the stuff. It's about making sure people don't get hurt.
 
Wouldn't you just know it. Just when you think you are safe, something you enjoy is going to kill you.

Hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Big words aren't they. Those words describe a lung condition, it is similar to black lung that coal miners get. But in this case the main causes are dander from snakes and birds. You got it. Shortness of breath and tiredness are the most common symptoms. In extreme cases can lead to death.

So Vicki, tell us about these pets you keep. We're going to outlaw them you know.
 
This thread makes me want to visit Amsterdam, just to try a brownie...
(of course while I'm there I'd also have to check out the neat canals and architecture etc.)
 
@elrojo, I'd let people eat it instead of smoking it because it's less harmful that way, if not totally harmless. It's not about not wanting people to feel high, or feel good because they're high. It's not about controlling everyone's actions all the time or making it illegal just because I personally hate the stuff. It's about making sure people don't get hurt.

You'd let...you would allow people to eat it...that is something you would allow....those words scare and anger me....

I don't care about your reasons for "letting" someone do something....the fact that you think that you, or governement, should have the authority to "let" adults do something that affects no one but themselves sickens me.....
 
This thread makes me want to visit Amsterdam, just to try a brownie...
(of course while I'm there I'd also have to check out the neat canals and architecture etc.)

Funny, this thread makes me want to do something dangerous...just because I can!!
 
We can all find arguments to base our “morals” so helping us find the high ground about marijuana smoking.
Ask yourself: Is marijuana consumption worse than tobacco or alcohol abuse? YES or NO.
Holland/Netherlands were the wacky weed is legal has not reported a massive increase of cancer suffers or any other physiological damage due to Pot so what really is the big No, No about the stuff.
Aspartame found in diet cool drink is scientifically proven to be poison
Children are being “poisoned” on a daily basis with the very foods that were “better for them than sugar.” AND ITS LEGAL

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1179217/pg1

http://thegirlfromtheghetto.wordpre...could-my-diet-coke-be-giving-me-fibromyalgia/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4172127
 
I don't see that the government has any business tellin anyone what they can do as long as it doesn't endanger others. Once you cross that line, then the law can take over, but you can't keep someone from doing something because they might abuse it. Maybe cell phones should be illegal. They may cause cancer, and you might talk on it while driving and kill someone. You might even call in a bomb threat, so perhaps all phones should be illegal.
That is the road to totalitarianism.

Well said..... +rep to you for that!

You'd let...you would allow people to eat it...that is something you would allow....those words scare and anger me....

I don't care about your reasons for "letting" someone do something....the fact that you think that you, or governement, should have the authority to "let" adults do something that affects no one but themselves sickens me.....

We seem to think alike.... you caught the exact the thing I did "I'd let you...."


I'd +rep you again... but you yanno... I gotta spread it around some first ;)
 
Hey VickyChaiTea,

I find only one thing wrong comparing tobacco cigarettes and marijuana cigarettes. People smoke more tobacco cigarettes in a day then they would marijuana cigarettes. I know my parents smoked 2 or 3 packs a day so that is 20 to 30 cigarettes and I do not think even a heavy pot smoker would smoke that make. I could be wrong since I do not smoke period.

Love the Fatman
 
Well said..... +rep to you for that!



We seem to think alike.... you caught the exact the thing I did "I'd let you...."


I'd +rep you again... but you yanno... I gotta spread it around some first ;)
Thanks GCG. I guess I'm on my way ;)

Funny, this thread makes me want to do something dangerous...just because I can!!
I hear that. I think I'll get drunk and go do wheelies on my motorcycle while shooting stuff...with no helmet. All on private land, of course.:twoguns:

psst...kidding.
 
Back
Top