When I talk about substance abuse, and with marijuana, I refer to when it's being abused.
but why automatically go there? there are plenty of mj users who are NOT abusers...and i think that perhaps the op might've been thinking along such lines...and the whys as to it still being 'wrong'...the negatives of that. of course, just saying...it can go in any direction. i just found a LOT focused merely on substance abuse...and i wonder why. beyond that, a habitual user....what is/would be negative? to me, in the US...only the legality factor. beyond that, i honestly don't see any 'negatives'.......just like any mind-altering substance, such as alcohol...i think both can be used and enjoyed responsibly. that's all.
for all your psychobabble, you've clearly never taken a single philosophy class. straw man arguments, as you like to so haughtily dismiss them, are simply tests of your idea's truth. if your idea is so weak it cannot be used consistently, it lacks truth. your idea seems to be we should outlaw pot becos some people will use it as a means of escapism to mask psychological issues. why does this only apply to pot and not the several dozen other forms of escapism?
I'm quite aware of the purposes of the staw man arguments. They only work when someone is in a cooperative relationship with the questioner--ie: they choose to engage.
You've been clearly judging me personally in this thread, so there is no basis for me to choose to engage.
My arguments stand on their own. You've resorted to straw men and personal attacks because you don't have reasoning on your side. You can try double speak and backwards reasoning. It just doesn't work.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
When I talk about substance abuse, and with marijuana, I refer to when it's being abused.
so what are you saying? in your mind...use = abuse? interesting. obviously, i disagree....but merely looking for clarification.
i've seen habitual mj users, who smoke responsibly...and i've seen abusers. just as i've witnessed the same with alcohol. so no, i do not see use automatically leading to abuse...but yes, that is my personal experience. although i must say, i've yet to read a study that proves any direct link to mj use to abuse of said drug. but it certainly explains to some degree your quick focus on substance abuse in this thread. eh well.
so you basically have no logically consistent response then? just your own personal past issues with drugs clouding your views with fear and judgment... since you struggled with addiction, everyone who smokes pot ipso facto HAS to have psychological problems to smoke pot?
where do you get this "98% of humans are fucked up" statistic you keep throwing around? i think it's fantastic that you consider yourself to be in the elite 2% of the human population who are superior to all the rest of us in terms of 'self-actualization' and all, but perhaps you ought to let us find it on our own rather than climbing onto your throne and trying to impose it?
I could be in the bottom two percent and still have the accurate information to share. It's you who is making assumptions on where I see myself.
What I love about message boards is that all opinions are accepted.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
So obviously then, many of you DO need "THEM" to come in and regulate these things for you
OMFG.
WHAT COUNTRY DO YOU THINK THIS IS !?!
Do you understand the principles of American LIBERTY ?
You have the RIGHT ... not privelage ... the IRREVOCABLE, GOD GIVEN, INALIENABLE, UNDENIABLE, IRRETRACTABLE, IRREFUTABLE, INHERENT, NATURAL BORN, UNABRIDGED, FUNDAMENTAL, AND ALL ENCOMPASSING SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO do whatever you so feel fit to be in your best interest ... provided your enjoyment of said right not cause you to trespass the right of another citizen.
The enjoyment of any substance does not inherently (in and of itself) violate ANY of YOUR constitutional rights ... PERIOD.
I could be in the bottom two percent and still have the accurate information to share. It's you who is making assumptions on where I see myself.
What I love about message boards is that all opinions are accepted.
the 98% statistic please? what percentile do you see yourself in then?
the straw man arguments are perfectly legit. i too have battled substance abuse, and the facts are no less on my side. people abuse food, sex, alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, shopping, etc etc. none of these are illegal. your "points" and "accurate information" are smokescreens. you have no data. just your perceptions and personal theories of human psychology... that anyone who has ever gotten buzzed did it solely for deeply problematic psychological issues... becos that's what you did.
furthermore, you have no proof that legalization would somehow condone abusive behaviors or corrode society or any of the other nonsense you are discussing. i have prohibition, the era when the US tried to ban alcohol and the result was as disastrous as the current war on drugs.
i don't smoke. i had serious drug problems. but the legality of the substance had nothing to do with any of it. people with these problems will find ways to engage in unhealthy behaviors... whether they choose illegal drugs or fatty foods. that's why there is a 12 step program for everything now. so show your arguments... how does banning pot make any dent in this problem without banning all the rest? medically, psychologically, physically, and socially speaking, smoking marijuana is far less harmful than many of those other behaviors. if people are going to behave poorly, a safer outlet for that seems a good idea to me.
lets also look at Holland and Amsterdam and their decriminalization policy, and their very much legal prostitution.
I was just there.
Believe me, they are doing JUST FINE.
In fact, i would LOVE to move to Holland, but i will probably have to wait until i have the money to afford such a venture and the time to invest in procuring the required documents, etc.
I did not notice any rampant crime, or degenerate behavior. I didn't see any bums in the streets, or junkies on door stoops. I didn't see any motherless children in the gutters, and i did not here ONE dutchman or woman complain about their laws.
In fact, when we engaged in conversation with them over drug laws, everyone we talked to said that Holland was doing fine, and that they really felt sorry for us Americans on account of the ridiculous policies regarding such.
The only problem they are having is that, being the most drug friendly country in the region, they are being flooded with weekend partiers from across the UK who come just to cause a ruccous and get wasted.
But that is only a problem because other countries aren't as tolerant. But the Dutch themselves were all EXTREMELY well adjusted, kind, jovial, loving, compassionate, hard working, and respectable people.
In all the coffee shops we went to, we didn't see, talk to, hear about, or come in contact with a single "shady" "scum" drug addict ... just a lot of really nice people who liked to get a little blazed.
sheesh.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
"The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context." http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
"To identify a Straw Man Argument, you must be familiar enough with the topic in question to recognize when someone is setting up a caricature. Understanding when someone is using this deceptive tactic is the best way to call attention to the weakness of the straw man position. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted. ~wikipedia
So far you've resorted to double speak: "being direct is being passively aggressive", "being logical is being illogical".
You've resorted to personal attacks and now straw men. I'm not interested in discussing the subject matter with you at all.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You obviously have not given up your purposes. The majority does not support yours and therefore it is not the norm or law. .
What about when the majority does support my purpose, as it does in Canada? How do you react to this?
Ok, let me try phrasing it this way... IF (yes if, just answer one, please!) the law is changed to suit MY purpose, what is the consequence of you not giving up on YOUR purpose? ok ok...I'll answer for you...there is NONE. You are free to do what you want, believe what you want, preach to who you want, condescend to whomever you want until the day you die. no, I have not given up on my purposes. But because of this, I risk severe punishment.
You're saying that because I follow my own inner vision no matter what people think that it sounds intolerant to you? Interesting.
No, I think it sounds intolerant to not care about what anyone else thinks, when it has NOTHING to do with YOU in the first place. I still say you are trying to impose your beliefs on others...therefore, you are coming across as intolerant.
And for the record...your own inner vision sounds textbook, indoctrinated. I don't mean that as an attack.... i'm curious which texts influenced your views on this topic...
one more thing - I'm curious why you decided to not address the point I made about you spelling out, in your own words, the exact reason why prohibition will never work:
"Any logic that asks me to give up my purposes, for another person's purposes (for example your own) does not have a basic logic that works and therefore people won't listen. That's the bottom line. Therefore the logic of expecting others to change and give up their own purposes and personal perspectives is faulty."
What about when the majority does support my purpose, as it does in Canada? How do you react to this?
Ok, let me try phrasing it this way... IF (yes if, just answer one, please!) the law is changed to suit MY purpose, what is the consequence of you not giving up on YOUR purpose? ok ok...I'll answer for you...there is NONE. You are free to do what you want, believe what you want, preach to who you want, condescend to whomever you want until the day you die. no, I have not given up on my purposes. But because of this, I risk severe punishment.
thanks teach.
No, I think it sounds intolerant to not care about what anyone else thinks, when it has NOTHING to do with YOU in the first place. I still say you are trying to impose your beliefs on others...therefore, you are coming across as intolerant.
one more thing - I'm curious why you decided to not address the point I made about you spelling out, in your own words, the exact reason why prohibition will never work:
"Any logic that asks me to give up my purposes, for another person's purposes (for example your own) does not have a basic logic that works and therefore people won't listen. That's the bottom line. Therefore the logic of expecting others to change and give up their own purposes and personal perspectives is faulty."
It's obvious there is major non-communication happening. I've explained all my points. They are in this thread to reread should any point not be clear. It's obvious to me that we're on a different wavelength. So be it.
And for the record...your own inner vision sounds textbook, indoctrinated. I don't mean that as an attack.... i'm curious which texts influenced your views on this topic...
The irony of it all is that I learned what I've learned by overcoming and healing disorder after disorder through by practical and healing action and experience. It cannot be taught in a textbook; it is only learned by experiencing it and by KNOWledge.
"Knowledge is experience, all the rest is information." ~Einstein
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It's obvious there is major non-communication happening. I've explained all my points. They are in this thread to reread should any point not be clear. It's obvious to me that we're on a different wavelength. So be it.
The irony of it all is that I learned what I've learned by overcoming and healing disorder after disorder through by practical and healing action and experience. It cannot be taught in a textbook; it is only learned by experiencing it and by KNOWledge.
"Knowledge is experience, all the rest is information." ~Einstein
ya, this was starting to bore me too...
Im glad you have been able to recover from whatever it was that was having negative impacts on your life.
I have plenty of knowledge on this topic...I choose to digest it differently.
ya, this was starting to bore me too...
Im glad you have been able to recover from whatever it was that was having negative impacts on your life.
I have plenty of knowledge on this topic...I choose to digest it differently.
tis a wise choice. people believe what they want to believe...and particularly here, many have their own agendas...their own style of debate...and certainly their own highly selective ways of debating and choosing to engage. you're a better man, DO. when faced with a useless discussion...always best to walk away.
however, 'personal truths' and whatever else one may want to call it, etc, etc...eh well...what's the point really? many of us DO operate on different levels, so much so that makes it well....not even interesting or worth trying to get there. we see and believe what we choose so often. anyway, i hear ya if it's any consolation.
i still have not seen any true 'evidence' supporting the idea that using mj leads to abuse, no direct causal link. it is not simply what i 'see' in my personal experience...but even what is studied, science, etc. but...whatever.
one final thought...drifting made a very good point about the dutch. i have experienced said culture firsthand and i agree. seems perfectly healthy to me. then again, i don't believe 98% of the population is living in denial nor are not fully self-actualized. of course, i guess that would put me in the 98%. however, i will simply say....i don't really see it that way, but i guess it's my personal truth......and hell, if that's the company i keep, so be it...i like it here.
So far you've resorted to double speak: "being direct is being passively aggressive", "being logical is being illogical".
You've resorted to personal attacks and now straw men. I'm not interested in discussing the subject matter with you at all.
now who's playing straw man games? there is nothing double speak in my posts. i've been saying the opposite: you are NOT being. you're being evasive and underhanded. and you've spewed emotional arguments strongly colored and prejudiced by your own personal experiences and beliefs and tried to pass them off as absolute and inarguable "fact." you've claimed on multiple occasions that truth is on your side and insinuated that anyone who disagrees with you in here is developmentally stunted from an evolutionary standpoint (becos we lack the magical 2% level enlightenment you claim, again, with no evidence of where this figure comes from). you say that becos you were a drug addict and some people get addicted to drugs, legalizing pot is going to encourage people to become drug addicts. there is no sense to that position. addiction operates independently of legality. which is where my "straw man" comes from. it exposes the inherent fallacy in your arguments that somehow legalization is tied to abuse. this is your premise and it is deeply flawed.
banning addictive substances has never prevented their abuse, and legalizing such substances has never inflated their abuse. prohibition and the netherlands drug reform amply support this position. the only evidence you offer is your shadowy self-actualization theories, which you toss out as proof that your position is unassailable. which is ingenious. i can't recall the term, but it is a perfect position: "i am right and know the truth, and if you do not see it it is only becos you are not as advanced and enlightened as i am."
where does this 98% figure come from?
where in history has prohibition worked?
why did substance abuse not increase in holland post-legalization, if your assertion that legalization will promote and condone substance abuse is absolute and irrefutable truth?
tis a wise choice. people believe what they want to believe...and particularly here, many have their own agendas...their own style of debate...and certainly their own highly selective ways of debating and choosing to engage. you're a better man, DO. when faced with a useless discussion...always best to walk away.
however, 'personal truths' and whatever else one may want to call it, etc, etc...eh well...what's the point really? many of us DO operate on different levels, so much so that makes it well....not even interesting or worth trying to get there. we see and believe what we choose so often.
Definitely...some of the most memorable nights of my life have involved talking to walls When it's a public discussion it's hard to walk away...if it was in person, Id have changed the subject at "maladaptation"....fuck, it's weed, man!
It is! But then you didn't need convincing
Funny thing is, there is very little I'm taking issue with in my debate with angelica. I actually support a lot of her views, to varying extents. However, i'm having trouble with the presentation, on a lot of levels.
then again, i don't believe 98% of the population is living in denial nor are not fully self-actualized. of course, i guess that would put me in the 98%.
ain't that just a bitch of a conundrum? I'm going to be chasing my tail over this aaaallllll night
BAH - that's the first time I've seen this seven image shite - go figure it's when talking to you (wink)
....it all depends on what you want to accomplish in life.
very true. some of the most intelligent and artistically influencial people in the world were users of marijuana. then again, so were some of the biggest losers that have ever lived. every drug affects every person differently
Do you see the way that tree bends?
Does it inspire?
Leaning out to catch the sun's rays...
A lesson to be applied.
Best night of my life. . .
Noblesville, IN 06-22-03.
"Long-term regular users of marijuana may become psychologically dependent. They may have a hard time limiting their use, they may need more of the drug to get the same effect, and they may develop problems with their jobs and personal relationships. The drug can become the most important aspect of their lives."
"Marijuana use increases the heart rate as much as 50 percent, depending on the amount of THC. It can cause chest pain in people who have a poor blood supply to the heart - and it produces these effects more rapidly than tobacco smoke does."
"Driving experiments show that marijuana affects a wide range of skills needed for safe driving -- thinking and reflexes are slowed, making it hard for drivers to respond to sudden, unexpected events. Also, a driver's ability to "track" (stay in lane) through curves, to brake quickly, and to maintain speed and the proper distance between cars is affected. Research shows that these skills are impaired for at least 4-6 hours after smoking a single marijuana cigarette, long after the "high" is gone. If a person drinks alcohol, along with using marijuana, the risk of an accident greatly increases. Marijuana presents a definite danger on the road."
"Marijuana smoke has been found to contain more cancer-causing agents than is found in tobacco smoke. Examination of human lung tissue that had been exposed to marijuana smoke over a long period of time in a laboratory showed cellular changes called metaplasia that are considered precancerous. In laboratory test, the tars from marijuana smoke have produced tumors when applied to animal skin. These studies suggest that it is likely that marijuana may cause cancer if used for a number of years."
"Researchers have found that THC changes the way in which sensory information gets into and is acted on by the hippocampus. This is a component of the brain’s limbic system that is crucial for learning, memory, and the integration of sensory experiences with emotions and motivations. Investigations have shown that THC suppresses neurons in the information processing system of the hippocampus. In addition, researchers have discovered that learned behaviors, which depend on the hippocampus, also deteriorate."
People use substances and behaviours that cause harmful fallout, as a way of coping, with real effects in crippling one's own inner processes. To me this is abusing one's self, albeit sometimes unknowingly, or because one cannot comprehend what one is actually doing. (due to defense mechanisms of denial and of stunted brain processing) When such behaviours interrupt our ability to integrate our experiences, we remain unconscious of them. We stunt our own emotional issues and our experiences remain paralyzed/frozen in the brain, rather than processed. This includes denying one's self the benefit of gaining insight and understanding of one's life experiences to grow from.(based on information in John Bradshaw's book: "Bradshaw: On the Family") This prevents whole brain integration and emotional intelligence.
"Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers have. These individuals may have daily cough and phlegm, symptoms of chronic bronchitis, and more frequent chest colds. Continuing to smoke marijuana can lead to abnormal functioning of lung tissue injured or destroyed by marijuana smoke.
Regardless of the THC content, the amount of tar inhaled by marijuana smokers and the level of carbon monoxide absorbed are three to five times greater than among tobacco smokers. This may be due to marijuana users inhaling more deeply and holding the smoke in the lungs."
"Marijuana smoke contains some of the same cancer-causing compounds as tobacco, sometimes in higher concentrations.Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day."
"Long-term regular users of marijuana may become psychologically dependent. They may have a hard time limiting their use, they may need more of the drug to get the same effect, and they may develop problems with their jobs and personal relationships. The drug can become the most important aspect of their lives."
i read a lot of 'mays'...as in, possibly....but not definitively. so yes, to me, without a definitive causal like...doesn't make it so...just may be so....for some...possibly. and again, the last sentence should also read may......b/c while it may do so, again, it may not.
"Marijuana use increases the heart rate as much as 50 percent, depending on the amount of THC. It can cause chest pain in people who have a poor blood supply to the heart - and it produces these effects more rapidly than tobacco smoke does."
"Driving experiments show that marijuana affects a wide range of skills needed for safe driving -- thinking and reflexes are slowed, making it hard for drivers to respond to sudden, unexpected events. Also, a driver's ability to "track" (stay in lane) through curves, to brake quickly, and to maintain speed and the proper distance between cars is affected. Research shows that these skills are impaired for at least 4-6 hours after smoking a single marijuana cigarette, long after the "high" is gone. If a person drinks alcohol, along with using marijuana, the risk of an accident greatly increases. Marijuana presents a definite danger on the road."
"Marijuana smoke has been found to contain more cancer-causing agents than is found in tobacco smoke. Examination of human lung tissue that had been exposed to marijuana smoke over a long period of time in a laboratory showed cellular changes called metaplasia that are considered precancerous. In laboratory test, the tars from marijuana smoke have produced tumors when applied to animal skin. These studies suggest that it is likely that marijuana may cause cancer if used for a number of years."
as to all the rest, i don't know what anyone else was arguing, but i never once thought smoking, anything, is necessarily physically healthy...and absolutely agre it impairs judgement. however, all of which are choices...to be made by adults....in choosing to smoke cigarettes...or to drink alcohol...both perfectly legal activities. i never suggested it was something do whenever, wherever...in fact i think i personally made it clear that one may do so responsibly.
so yes, nice link...but doesn't *prove* anything anyone here didn't know already. possibilities not withstanding...doesn't make it so for all, not even close. just like everyone who smokes cigaretters...nor those who drink alcohol...are all destined to becoming addicts. thus why all such activities should be decisions made by adults, ideally, although we know oftentimes that is not the case. for me, i made all such decisions for the first time while underage. perhaps not the wisest...and yet here i am, not addicted...and unscathed. well i do admit i was/am addicted to cigs, but i happily kicked them out of my life...again, my choice/decision.
"Researchers have found that THC changes the way in which sensory information gets into and is acted on by the hippocampus. This is a component of the brain’s limbic system that is crucial for learning, memory, and the integration of sensory experiences with emotions and motivations. Investigations have shown that THC suppresses neurons in the information processing system of the hippocampus. In addition, researchers have discovered that learned behaviors, which depend on the hippocampus, also deteriorate."
People use substances and behaviours that cause harmful fallout, as a way of coping, with real effects in crippling one's own inner processes. To me this is abusing one's self, albeit sometimes unknowingly, or because one cannot comprehend what one is actually doing. (due to defense mechanisms of denial and of stunted brain processing) When such behaviours interrupt our ability to integrate our experiences, we remain unconscious of them. We stunt our own emotional issues and our experiences remain paralyzed/frozen in the brain, rather than processed. This includes denying one's self the benefit of gaining insight and understanding of one's life experiences to grow from.(based on information in John Bradshaw's book: "Bradshaw: On the Family") This prevents whole brain integration and emotional intelligence.
"Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers have. These individuals may have daily cough and phlegm, symptoms of chronic bronchitis, and more frequent chest colds. Continuing to smoke marijuana can lead to abnormal functioning of lung tissue injured or destroyed by marijuana smoke.
Regardless of the THC content, the amount of tar inhaled by marijuana smokers and the level of carbon monoxide absorbed are three to five times greater than among tobacco smokers. This may be due to marijuana users inhaling more deeply and holding the smoke in the lungs."
"Marijuana smoke contains some of the same cancer-causing compounds as tobacco, sometimes in higher concentrations.Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day."
so you're defending the illegalization of pot by comparing its affects to other substances that are legal?
'it impairs driving.'
'it causes cancer.'
tell me what effect you think these things should have on tobacco and alcohol? surely, if marijuana should be illegal for these results, so should the others, yes?
Do you see the way that tree bends?
Does it inspire?
Leaning out to catch the sun's rays...
A lesson to be applied.
Best night of my life. . .
Noblesville, IN 06-22-03.
so you're defending the illegalization of pot by comparing its affects to other substances that are legal?
'it impairs driving.'
'it causes cancer.'
tell me what effect you think these things should have on tobacco and alcohol? surely, if marijuana should be illegal for these results, so should the others, yes?
thank you.
i also like the idea of adults being able to make such decisions for themselves. i agree certain things in this world should be banned...or regulated...but i DO whole-heartedly agree if substances such as tobacco and alcohol are lawful, and yes i fully believe they should be, why not mj? personally, it doesn't make sense to me.
also the medicinal properties of mj, while for a different use...cannot be denied...and i am glad that least patients who need such can use such.
again, the dutch are a CLEAR and shining example that legalization does NOT correlate a higher degree of abuse nor addiction. seems quite the contrary in reality.
so you're defending the illegalization of pot by comparing its affects to other substances that are legal?
'it impairs driving.'
'it causes cancer.'
tell me what effect you think these things should have on tobacco and alcohol? surely, if marijuana should be illegal for these results, so should the others, yes?
I'm presenting facts on the negative effects of marijuana use.
It's apparent that many people like to minimize the value of the facts by distracting themselves with the alcohol arguments. I'm not one of them. It's obviously a big defense mechanism used ongoingly throughout this thread. It doesn't detract from the value of the facts, however.
Feel free to proceed, it's just that my focus is on the case in point: marijuana--and its harmful effects.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"Long-term regular users of marijuana MAY become psychologically dependent. They may have a hard time limiting their use, they may need more of the drug to get the same effect, and they may develop problems with their jobs and personal relationships. The drug can become the most important aspect of their lives."
"Marijuana use increases the heart rate as much as 50 percent, depending on the amount of THC. It CAN cause chest pain in people who have a poor blood supply to the heart - and it produces these effects more rapidly than tobacco smoke does."
"Driving experiments show that marijuana affects a wide range of skills needed for safe driving -- thinking and reflexes are slowed, making it hard for drivers to respond to sudden, unexpected events. Also, a driver's ability to "track" (stay in lane) through curves, to brake quickly, and to maintain speed and the proper distance between cars is affected. Research shows that these skills are impaired for at least 4-6 hours after smoking a single marijuana cigarette, long after the "high" is gone. If a person drinks alcohol, along with using marijuana, the risk of an accident greatly increases. Marijuana presents a definite danger on the road."
"Marijuana smoke has been found to contain more cancer-causing agents than is found in tobacco smoke. Examination of human lung tissue that had been exposed to marijuana smoke over a long period of time in a laboratory showed cellular changes called metaplasia that are considered precancerous. In laboratory test, the tars from marijuana smoke have produced tumors when applied to animal skin. These studies suggest that it is likely that marijuana MAY cause cancer if used for a number of years."
i don't know how to bold, so i capitalized the letters that are operative in all of those points. the driving i agree 100%. nobody should drive under the influence of anything.
but this still does not provide support for prohitibion. you show that marijuana can have negative effects on some people. if that is your premise... that sometimes pot does bad things, why do you draw a distinction between it and other harmful substances which are not prohibited? you show nothing that distinguishes marijuana and supports your stance that it deserves far greater sanctions than alcohol.
Feel free to proceed, it's just that my focus is on the case in point: marijuana--and its harmful effects.
the true topic raised (though not well or clearly by the OP) is whether these negative effects justify the current legal status of the plant. your points do nothing to address this.
I'm presenting facts on the negative effects of marijuana use.
It's apparent that many people like to minimize the value of the facts by distracting themselves with the alcohol arguments. I'm not one of them. It's obviously a big defense mechanism used ongoingly throughout this thread. It doesn't detract from the value of the facts, however.
Feel free to proceed, it's just that my focus is on the case in point: marijuana--and its harmful effects.
that's fine, and i'll not reference alcohol at all if it makes you feel better; but the fact of the matter stands that there are plenty of things that have negative health effects but should not simply for this reason be illegal. it only makes since that people mention these other examples because if law is to make sense and be just, how can that happen if exceptions are made and differences defined between two things that have the same negative effects and results.
Do you see the way that tree bends?
Does it inspire?
Leaning out to catch the sun's rays...
A lesson to be applied.
Best night of my life. . .
Noblesville, IN 06-22-03.
i don't know how to bold, so i capitalized the letters that are operative in all of those points. the driving i agree 100%. nobody should drive under the influence of anything.
but this still does not provide support for prohitibion. you show that marijuana can have negative effects on some people. if that is your premise... that sometimes pot does bad things, why do you draw a distinction between it and other harmful substances which are not prohibited? you show nothing that distinguishes marijuana and supports your stance that it deserves far greater sanctions than alcohol.
I'm not supporting prohibition. I'm supporting the many views of people who have come to subjective decisions, whereupon in good faith, they are unwilling to support and enable this particular harmful vice.
I don't at all draw distinctions between harmful vices. As I come to understand the harm of harmful vices, I no longer support them. That includes alcohol, sex addiction, all the "holisms" like work or shopaholism, etc, etc. It includes sugar addiction, caffeine addiction and computer addiction. When you judge me otherwise, you show a lack of awareness of what you speak.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"Researchers have found that THC changes the way in which sensory information gets into and is acted on by the hippocampus. This is a component of the brain’s limbic system that is crucial for learning, memory, and the integration of sensory experiences with emotions and motivations. Investigations have shown that THC suppresses neurons in the information processing system of the hippocampus. In addition, researchers have discovered that learned behaviors, which depend on the hippocampus, also deteriorate."
People use substances and behaviours that cause harmful fallout, as a way of coping, with real effects in crippling one's own inner processes. To me this is abusing one's self, albeit sometimes unknowingly, or because one cannot comprehend what one is actually doing. (due to defense mechanisms of denial and of stunted brain processing) When such behaviours interrupt our ability to integrate our experiences, we remain unconscious of them. We stunt our own emotional issues and our experiences remain paralyzed/frozen in the brain, rather than processed. This includes denying one's self the benefit of gaining insight and understanding of one's life experiences to grow from.(based on information in John Bradshaw's book: "Bradshaw: On the Family") This prevents whole brain integration and emotional intelligence.
1. further research has also shown that all such effects on the brain pass after smoking stops.
2. your whole second paragraph is far from fact. it is your personal opinion that alteration of brain activity causes stunted growth and denial. the medical data says nothing about this. furthermore, it is also your personal opinion, supported by no facts other than your own experience, that such activity is a horrible thing. progress for the sake of progress is meaningless. i can't recall the name, but there is a term for an engineering machine that uses incredibly complex processes to produce a very simple result just to show off that it can. your serenity as admirable and works well for you, but that does not mean your path is the only or best one. in this sense, you are no different from a religious fundamentalist who insists they know the only right way to live.
Comments
but why automatically go there? there are plenty of mj users who are NOT abusers...and i think that perhaps the op might've been thinking along such lines...and the whys as to it still being 'wrong'...the negatives of that. of course, just saying...it can go in any direction. i just found a LOT focused merely on substance abuse...and i wonder why. beyond that, a habitual user....what is/would be negative? to me, in the US...only the legality factor. beyond that, i honestly don't see any 'negatives'.......just like any mind-altering substance, such as alcohol...i think both can be used and enjoyed responsibly. that's all.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You've been clearly judging me personally in this thread, so there is no basis for me to choose to engage.
My arguments stand on their own. You've resorted to straw men and personal attacks because you don't have reasoning on your side. You can try double speak and backwards reasoning. It just doesn't work.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
hmmmmmm......
so what are you saying? in your mind...use = abuse? interesting. obviously, i disagree....but merely looking for clarification.
i've seen habitual mj users, who smoke responsibly...and i've seen abusers. just as i've witnessed the same with alcohol. so no, i do not see use automatically leading to abuse...but yes, that is my personal experience. although i must say, i've yet to read a study that proves any direct link to mj use to abuse of said drug. but it certainly explains to some degree your quick focus on substance abuse in this thread. eh well.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
What I love about message boards is that all opinions are accepted.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
OMFG.
WHAT COUNTRY DO YOU THINK THIS IS !?!
Do you understand the principles of American LIBERTY ?
You have the RIGHT ... not privelage ... the IRREVOCABLE, GOD GIVEN, INALIENABLE, UNDENIABLE, IRRETRACTABLE, IRREFUTABLE, INHERENT, NATURAL BORN, UNABRIDGED, FUNDAMENTAL, AND ALL ENCOMPASSING SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO do whatever you so feel fit to be in your best interest ... provided your enjoyment of said right not cause you to trespass the right of another citizen.
The enjoyment of any substance does not inherently (in and of itself) violate ANY of YOUR constitutional rights ... PERIOD.
Thus,
THAT RIGHT CAN NOT BE TAKEN FROM ME.
Even the ACLU is onboard with Drug Law Reform ...
If I opened it now would you not understand?
the 98% statistic please? what percentile do you see yourself in then?
the straw man arguments are perfectly legit. i too have battled substance abuse, and the facts are no less on my side. people abuse food, sex, alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, shopping, etc etc. none of these are illegal. your "points" and "accurate information" are smokescreens. you have no data. just your perceptions and personal theories of human psychology... that anyone who has ever gotten buzzed did it solely for deeply problematic psychological issues... becos that's what you did.
furthermore, you have no proof that legalization would somehow condone abusive behaviors or corrode society or any of the other nonsense you are discussing. i have prohibition, the era when the US tried to ban alcohol and the result was as disastrous as the current war on drugs.
i don't smoke. i had serious drug problems. but the legality of the substance had nothing to do with any of it. people with these problems will find ways to engage in unhealthy behaviors... whether they choose illegal drugs or fatty foods. that's why there is a 12 step program for everything now. so show your arguments... how does banning pot make any dent in this problem without banning all the rest? medically, psychologically, physically, and socially speaking, smoking marijuana is far less harmful than many of those other behaviors. if people are going to behave poorly, a safer outlet for that seems a good idea to me.
I was just there.
Believe me, they are doing JUST FINE.
In fact, i would LOVE to move to Holland, but i will probably have to wait until i have the money to afford such a venture and the time to invest in procuring the required documents, etc.
I did not notice any rampant crime, or degenerate behavior. I didn't see any bums in the streets, or junkies on door stoops. I didn't see any motherless children in the gutters, and i did not here ONE dutchman or woman complain about their laws.
In fact, when we engaged in conversation with them over drug laws, everyone we talked to said that Holland was doing fine, and that they really felt sorry for us Americans on account of the ridiculous policies regarding such.
The only problem they are having is that, being the most drug friendly country in the region, they are being flooded with weekend partiers from across the UK who come just to cause a ruccous and get wasted.
But that is only a problem because other countries aren't as tolerant. But the Dutch themselves were all EXTREMELY well adjusted, kind, jovial, loving, compassionate, hard working, and respectable people.
In all the coffee shops we went to, we didn't see, talk to, hear about, or come in contact with a single "shady" "scum" drug addict ... just a lot of really nice people who liked to get a little blazed.
sheesh.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
"To identify a Straw Man Argument, you must be familiar enough with the topic in question to recognize when someone is setting up a caricature. Understanding when someone is using this deceptive tactic is the best way to call attention to the weakness of the straw man position. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted. ~wikipedia
So far you've resorted to double speak: "being direct is being passively aggressive", "being logical is being illogical".
You've resorted to personal attacks and now straw men. I'm not interested in discussing the subject matter with you at all.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok, let me try phrasing it this way... IF (yes if, just answer one, please!) the law is changed to suit MY purpose, what is the consequence of you not giving up on YOUR purpose? ok ok...I'll answer for you...there is NONE. You are free to do what you want, believe what you want, preach to who you want, condescend to whomever you want until the day you die. no, I have not given up on my purposes. But because of this, I risk severe punishment.
thanks teach. No, I think it sounds intolerant to not care about what anyone else thinks, when it has NOTHING to do with YOU in the first place. I still say you are trying to impose your beliefs on others...therefore, you are coming across as intolerant.
And for the record...your own inner vision sounds textbook, indoctrinated. I don't mean that as an attack.... i'm curious which texts influenced your views on this topic...
one more thing - I'm curious why you decided to not address the point I made about you spelling out, in your own words, the exact reason why prohibition will never work:
"Any logic that asks me to give up my purposes, for another person's purposes (for example your own) does not have a basic logic that works and therefore people won't listen. That's the bottom line. Therefore the logic of expecting others to change and give up their own purposes and personal perspectives is faulty."
The irony of it all is that I learned what I've learned by overcoming and healing disorder after disorder through by practical and healing action and experience. It cannot be taught in a textbook; it is only learned by experiencing it and by KNOWledge.
"Knowledge is experience, all the rest is information." ~Einstein
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
ya, this was starting to bore me too...
Im glad you have been able to recover from whatever it was that was having negative impacts on your life.
I have plenty of knowledge on this topic...I choose to digest it differently.
tis a wise choice. people believe what they want to believe...and particularly here, many have their own agendas...their own style of debate...and certainly their own highly selective ways of debating and choosing to engage. you're a better man, DO.
however, 'personal truths' and whatever else one may want to call it, etc, etc...eh well...what's the point really? many of us DO operate on different levels, so much so that makes it well....not even interesting or worth trying to get there. we see and believe what we choose so often. anyway, i hear ya if it's any consolation.
i still have not seen any true 'evidence' supporting the idea that using mj leads to abuse, no direct causal link. it is not simply what i 'see' in my personal experience...but even what is studied, science, etc. but...whatever.
one final thought...drifting made a very good point about the dutch. i have experienced said culture firsthand and i agree. seems perfectly healthy to me. then again, i don't believe 98% of the population is living in denial nor are not fully self-actualized. of course, i guess that would put me in the 98%.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
now who's playing straw man games? there is nothing double speak in my posts. i've been saying the opposite: you are NOT being. you're being evasive and underhanded. and you've spewed emotional arguments strongly colored and prejudiced by your own personal experiences and beliefs and tried to pass them off as absolute and inarguable "fact." you've claimed on multiple occasions that truth is on your side and insinuated that anyone who disagrees with you in here is developmentally stunted from an evolutionary standpoint (becos we lack the magical 2% level enlightenment you claim, again, with no evidence of where this figure comes from). you say that becos you were a drug addict and some people get addicted to drugs, legalizing pot is going to encourage people to become drug addicts. there is no sense to that position. addiction operates independently of legality. which is where my "straw man" comes from. it exposes the inherent fallacy in your arguments that somehow legalization is tied to abuse. this is your premise and it is deeply flawed.
banning addictive substances has never prevented their abuse, and legalizing such substances has never inflated their abuse. prohibition and the netherlands drug reform amply support this position. the only evidence you offer is your shadowy self-actualization theories, which you toss out as proof that your position is unassailable. which is ingenious. i can't recall the term, but it is a perfect position: "i am right and know the truth, and if you do not see it it is only becos you are not as advanced and enlightened as i am."
where does this 98% figure come from?
where in history has prohibition worked?
why did substance abuse not increase in holland post-legalization, if your assertion that legalization will promote and condone substance abuse is absolute and irrefutable truth?
You ever sucked some dick for marijuana?
It is! But then you didn't need convincing
Funny thing is, there is very little I'm taking issue with in my debate with angelica. I actually support a lot of her views, to varying extents. However, i'm having trouble with the presentation, on a lot of levels. ain't that just a bitch of a conundrum? I'm going to be chasing my tail over this aaaallllll night
BAH - that's the first time I've seen this seven image shite - go figure it's when talking to you (wink)
Does it inspire?
Leaning out to catch the sun's rays...
A lesson to be applied.
Best night of my life. . .
Noblesville, IN 06-22-03.
myspace.com/justonemorebottle
"Marijuana use increases the heart rate as much as 50 percent, depending on the amount of THC. It can cause chest pain in people who have a poor blood supply to the heart - and it produces these effects more rapidly than tobacco smoke does."
"Driving experiments show that marijuana affects a wide range of skills needed for safe driving -- thinking and reflexes are slowed, making it hard for drivers to respond to sudden, unexpected events. Also, a driver's ability to "track" (stay in lane) through curves, to brake quickly, and to maintain speed and the proper distance between cars is affected. Research shows that these skills are impaired for at least 4-6 hours after smoking a single marijuana cigarette, long after the "high" is gone. If a person drinks alcohol, along with using marijuana, the risk of an accident greatly increases. Marijuana presents a definite danger on the road."
"Marijuana smoke has been found to contain more cancer-causing agents than is found in tobacco smoke. Examination of human lung tissue that had been exposed to marijuana smoke over a long period of time in a laboratory showed cellular changes called metaplasia that are considered precancerous. In laboratory test, the tars from marijuana smoke have produced tumors when applied to animal skin. These studies suggest that it is likely that marijuana may cause cancer if used for a number of years."
http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
People use substances and behaviours that cause harmful fallout, as a way of coping, with real effects in crippling one's own inner processes. To me this is abusing one's self, albeit sometimes unknowingly, or because one cannot comprehend what one is actually doing. (due to defense mechanisms of denial and of stunted brain processing) When such behaviours interrupt our ability to integrate our experiences, we remain unconscious of them. We stunt our own emotional issues and our experiences remain paralyzed/frozen in the brain, rather than processed. This includes denying one's self the benefit of gaining insight and understanding of one's life experiences to grow from.(based on information in John Bradshaw's book: "Bradshaw: On the Family") This prevents whole brain integration and emotional intelligence.
"Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers have. These individuals may have daily cough and phlegm, symptoms of chronic bronchitis, and more frequent chest colds. Continuing to smoke marijuana can lead to abnormal functioning of lung tissue injured or destroyed by marijuana smoke.
Regardless of the THC content, the amount of tar inhaled by marijuana smokers and the level of carbon monoxide absorbed are three to five times greater than among tobacco smokers. This may be due to marijuana users inhaling more deeply and holding the smoke in the lungs."
http://www.gdcada.org/statistics/marijuana.htm
"Marijuana smoke contains some of the same cancer-causing compounds as tobacco, sometimes in higher concentrations.Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day."
http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Marijuana
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i read a lot of 'mays'...as in, possibly....but not definitively. so yes, to me, without a definitive causal like...doesn't make it so...just may be so....for some...possibly. and again, the last sentence should also read may......b/c while it may do so, again, it may not.
as to all the rest, i don't know what anyone else was arguing, but i never once thought smoking, anything, is necessarily physically healthy...and absolutely agre it impairs judgement. however, all of which are choices...to be made by adults....in choosing to smoke cigarettes...or to drink alcohol...both perfectly legal activities. i never suggested it was something do whenever, wherever...in fact i think i personally made it clear that one may do so responsibly.
so yes, nice link...but doesn't *prove* anything anyone here didn't know already. possibilities not withstanding...doesn't make it so for all, not even close. just like everyone who smokes cigaretters...nor those who drink alcohol...are all destined to becoming addicts. thus why all such activities should be decisions made by adults, ideally, although we know oftentimes that is not the case. for me, i made all such decisions for the first time while underage. perhaps not the wisest...and yet here i am, not addicted...and unscathed. well i do admit i was/am addicted to cigs, but i happily kicked them out of my life...again, my choice/decision.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
'it impairs driving.'
'it causes cancer.'
tell me what effect you think these things should have on tobacco and alcohol? surely, if marijuana should be illegal for these results, so should the others, yes?
Does it inspire?
Leaning out to catch the sun's rays...
A lesson to be applied.
Best night of my life. . .
Noblesville, IN 06-22-03.
myspace.com/justonemorebottle
i also like the idea of adults being able to make such decisions for themselves. i agree certain things in this world should be banned...or regulated...but i DO whole-heartedly agree if substances such as tobacco and alcohol are lawful, and yes i fully believe they should be, why not mj? personally, it doesn't make sense to me.
also the medicinal properties of mj, while for a different use...cannot be denied...and i am glad that least patients who need such can use such.
again, the dutch are a CLEAR and shining example that legalization does NOT correlate a higher degree of abuse nor addiction. seems quite the contrary in reality.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
It's apparent that many people like to minimize the value of the facts by distracting themselves with the alcohol arguments. I'm not one of them. It's obviously a big defense mechanism used ongoingly throughout this thread. It doesn't detract from the value of the facts, however.
Feel free to proceed, it's just that my focus is on the case in point: marijuana--and its harmful effects.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i don't know how to bold, so i capitalized the letters that are operative in all of those points. the driving i agree 100%. nobody should drive under the influence of anything.
but this still does not provide support for prohitibion. you show that marijuana can have negative effects on some people. if that is your premise... that sometimes pot does bad things, why do you draw a distinction between it and other harmful substances which are not prohibited? you show nothing that distinguishes marijuana and supports your stance that it deserves far greater sanctions than alcohol.
the true topic raised (though not well or clearly by the OP) is whether these negative effects justify the current legal status of the plant. your points do nothing to address this.
Does it inspire?
Leaning out to catch the sun's rays...
A lesson to be applied.
Best night of my life. . .
Noblesville, IN 06-22-03.
myspace.com/justonemorebottle
I don't at all draw distinctions between harmful vices. As I come to understand the harm of harmful vices, I no longer support them. That includes alcohol, sex addiction, all the "holisms" like work or shopaholism, etc, etc. It includes sugar addiction, caffeine addiction and computer addiction. When you judge me otherwise, you show a lack of awareness of what you speak.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
1. further research has also shown that all such effects on the brain pass after smoking stops.
2. your whole second paragraph is far from fact. it is your personal opinion that alteration of brain activity causes stunted growth and denial. the medical data says nothing about this. furthermore, it is also your personal opinion, supported by no facts other than your own experience, that such activity is a horrible thing. progress for the sake of progress is meaningless. i can't recall the name, but there is a term for an engineering machine that uses incredibly complex processes to produce a very simple result just to show off that it can. your serenity as admirable and works well for you, but that does not mean your path is the only or best one. in this sense, you are no different from a religious fundamentalist who insists they know the only right way to live.