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.
The second paragraph is based on the widely varying psychology cited in John Bradshaw's book that I referenced (he cites many branches of psychology and experts as well). He specifically addresses the paralysis that cripples the 'self' He explains HOW it cripples the self. He specifically shows what happens when the brain is unable to "integrate sensory experiences with emotions and motivations." (as is mentioned in the harmful marijuana facts). Which is why I tied the John Bradshaw info in with that first paragraph. He explains when our information processing is interrupted due to maladaptive behaviours, and what that looks like on the subjective, psychological level in a human being's life. How it manifests as insidious dysfunction. Conversely, he and the other codependency folks talk about how healing and healthy mechanisms can come into play.
Again your unrealistic conflicts with your own imagination is evident when you interpret my presenting information as presenting my way as the "only way to live". You're obviously going on ignorance here--or you'd have noticed that I've already said this in this very thread. Of course when you are focused on undermining me, you're not going to focus on understanding:
I fully support everyone making their own choices and gauging where they are for themselves at each step of their own journeys. Only we can judge for ourselves. And only we are accountable for our own actions.
Or
Never once at any time were my choices good or bad except in terms of how they affected me and others. No matter how "sick" or dysfunctional I have been, the most important thing was that I was able to be centered and listen to the feedback in my own life and learn for myself. That's what it's all about. And no matter what I've done, or what kinds of consequences I've gotten for my actions, the most important key was being able to listen to my own self nonjudgmentally. And to accept each and every aspect of myself, knowing I'm not perfect (which is still the case) and to trust my process, knowing it's about progress and not perfection. I support the same for others.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"The codependency spawned by monarchial patriarchy was once a way of life--a way of ensuring security and survival. In the new world of deep democracy, with its emphasis on holistic thinking, individuality, and personal power, what was once a normal adaptation for survival has become a dis-ease.
Codependency can be understood as a characteristic of an adult who is contaminated by childish dependency needs. The reason almost everyone identifies with many characteristics of codependency is that the monarchial patriarchal rules...created an environment wherein children could not get their dependency needs met.
When children are nurtured properly, their developmental dependency needs are, on some level, met. This is never achieved perfectly, but certainly in a manner that allows them to grow into adulthood with a certain degree of autonomy. When these dependency needs are not met, children become adults with a child's "neediness"....
A co-dependent person is an adult with mild to severe developmental deficits. These developmental deficits are the reason adult children experience spontaneous age regressions. (ed: acting out childish behaviour in varying manners) These regressions take place primarily in significant adult relationships."
~John Bradshaw, "Bradshaw: On the Family"
These developmental deficits can also be healed, by choosing to give up the substance or behavioural abuses that hold the dysfunction in place. By doing so we create a vacuum that creates the development of new patterns, which if we choose so, can be adult and healthy in terms of managing.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"The codependency spawned by monarchial patriarchy was once a way of life--a way of ensuring security and survival. In the new world of deep democracy, with its emphasis on holistic thinking, individuality, and personal power, what was once a normal adaptation for survival has become a dis-ease.
Codependency can be understood as a characteristic of an adult who is contaminated by childish dependency needs. The reason almost everyone identifies with many characteristics of codependency is that the monarchial patriarchal rules...created an environment wherein children could not get their dependency needs met.
When children are nurtured properly, their developmental dependency needs are, on some level, met. This is never achieved perfectly, but certainly in a manner that allows them to grow into adulthood with a certain degree of autonomy. When these dependency needs are not met, children become adults with a child's "neediness"....
A co-dependent person is an adult with mild to severe developmental deficits. These developmental deficits are the reason adult children experience spontaneous age regressions. (ed: acting out childish behaviour in varying manners) These regressions take place primarily in significant adult relationships."
~John Bradshaw, "Bradshaw: On the Family"
These developmental deficits can also be healed, by choosing to give up the substance or behavioural abuses that hold the dysfunction in place. By doing so we create a vacuum that creates the development of new patterns, which if we choose so, can be adult and healthy in terms of managing.
this is ridiculous. you're holding humans to a standard of flawless behavior that is impossible and always will be. this is life and a real world, where bad shit happens and people deal with it however they can. you keep mentioning progress, but talking only about perfection. and you still have not shown any reason why marijuana is such a distinct impediment to such progress that it deserves to be treated differently from other impediments to progress that are not so heavily regulated.
am i right in assuming bradshaw is the man with the 98% of people are fucked up statistic? sounds to me like drumming up business... if we convince ourselves we all have emotional problems, we're all going to have to buy a lot of therapy. me, i like to think humans are behaving pretty much as we always have and there is no 2% elite (as you seem to so enjoy lording over us) who have no problems, no dysfunction, and are flawless models of advanced evolutionary human behavior. the idea is absurd, and utterly dependent on the lense one is looking through when defining dysfunction.
this is ridiculous. you're holding humans to a standard of flawless behavior that is impossible and always will be.
Yeah, the crazy irony is that it's LIFE, iself, that holds people to this standard. I'm just the messenger. We choose non-adaptive or maladaptive behaviour, we get the consequences. We paralyze ourselves. Hey, it can even be fun at times. For me, the deep, wrenching pain was more than I could bear--I branched off into insanity. On the flipside though, I was also able to systematically heal it, by knowing it was possible and by following evolution (progress).
this is life and a real world, where bad shit happens and people deal with it however they can.
People choose given the variables in their lives and then they get the consequences of their actions. It it works, great. The problem is with these catch-22 situations. People paralyze their own thoughts and awareness. Then they therefore can't recognize their thoughts are paralyzed because their thoughts are paralyzed. So it gets tricky. Life evolves, though, and provides ways around that if we can stay even remotely awake to watch for ways to grow and learn. If we numb ourselves into the usual accepted and perpetuated unconsciousness, we choose to stay unconscious, acting out our dramas and our scripts. It's fair play. I long ago accepted that many people will continue to stay unconscious and to live the consequences of maladaption. It's just the way it is. I don't make the rules. I do attempt to work with them and evolution, however, and influence people.
you keep mentioning progress, but talking only about perfection. and you still have not shown any reason why marijuana is such a distinct impediment to such progress that it deserves to be treated differently from other impediments to progress that are not so heavily regulated.
I'm talking about human potential. You are the one who has carved it into perfection or degradation. Good/bad. Right, or worthy of degradation. Most people cannot speak "realism". It's part of the same problem--crippled processes. You can get out of the church, but the only way that false dualism is resolved is by accepting that it resides deep inside ourselves. Only then can we work it out--by resolving it the distortions we have continued to perpetuate in imbalance.
am i right in assuming bradshaw is the man with the 98% of people are fucked up statistic? sounds to me like drumming up business... if we convince ourselves we all have emotional problems, we're all going to have to buy a lot of therapy. me, i like to think humans are behaving pretty much as we always have and there is no 2% elite (as you seem to so enjoy lording over us) who have no problems, no dysfunction, and are flawless models of advanced evolutionary human behavior. the idea is absurd, and utterly dependent on the lense one is looking through when defining dysfunction.
I've answered the 98% thing to you numerous times in the past, but obviously you were unwilling or unable to listen or hear.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Well, every job is different and some jobs have certain requirements. Like, some jobs state you cannot be under the influence of alcohol at work...other jobs are such that your manager buys your team a round at lunch on Fridays...etc.
The requirements don't even have to be drug-related. My company prohibits me from making comments on public forums regarding my company. Heck, I probably just violated for saying we have that policy....
Well, every job is different and some jobs have certain requirements. Like, some jobs state you cannot be under the influence of alcohol at work...other jobs are such that your manager buys your team a round at lunch on Fridays...etc.
The requirements don't even have to be drug-related. My company prohibits me from making comments on public forums regarding my company. Heck, I probably just violated for saying we have that policy....
point well taken, with regards to every job being different.
the conflict is that most jobs worth "keeping" do inforce their policies.
from my experience, the people who are dumbfounded for losing their job for testing positive realize that this will follow them.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
Cellular Damage: Marijuana and its potent chemical THC cause physical changes in the user's body at the cellular level. These cell abnormalities alter normal cell division and affect the genetic makeup of new cells. They lower cell immunity, increasing the possibility of viral infections among users.
Nervous System Effects: THC causes an enlargement of the areas between nerve cells, resulting in poor transmission of nerve impulses between these cells.
Respiratory Damage: Marijuana is harmful to the entire respiratory system, from the sinus cavities to the air sacs within the lungs. Marijuana smoke is even more harmful than tobacco smoke, and users have a much higher incidence of respiratory disease than nonusers.
Other respiratory problems associated with marijuana use include:
Cardiovascular Effects: Smoking one marijuana cigarette has the immediate effect of increasing heart rate and blood pressure as much as 50 percent. Marijuana increases the amount of toxic carbon monoxide in the blood, thereby reducing the amount of oxygen reaching the heart. Increased blood pressure and changes in the blood vessels are reflected by the typical red or bloodshot eyes of the marijuana user. Chest pains have been attributed to marijuana use. People who suffer from angina, high blood pressure, diabetes, or other heart problems are at even greater risk smoking marijuana.
Damage to Reproductive Systems: Marijuana can have far-reaching effects on the reproductive systems of both men and women.
While marijuana was long-considered not to be physically addictive, most scientists now believe that the hallmarks of physical addiction, including tolerance and withdrawal may occur with long-term marijuana use. Certainly, regular users can develop a psychological dependence no different from other addictions. Those who are psychologically dependent can have difficulty limiting their use of the drug and can experience unpleasant side effects such as anxiety, insomnia and irritability when denied access to marijuana. http://www.lpac.ca/English/Main/Drugmanual_chapter4.aspx
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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 quite the assumption on your pat.
i will not pretend to speak for others who have posted, but i know why *I* brought up alcohol and tobacco in my posts. i was using said substances as examples that are completely LEGAL to use. seems a fair point of comparison to make. even you in some of your quoted sources, have direct links comparing tobacco and mj for example...so even these trusted sources of yours see fit to compare and contrast.
it does seem however, read other posts...we are talking of 2 different things. it seems to me, and this is ony my impression...that you are not? arguing a for/against stance for the legalization of mj? merely discussion the possible negative ramifications of use? is that it?
as i've said here a couple times already, i fully agre with the possibility of abuse, and negative consequences. i then compared such to LEGAL substances in use/approved for use...today...such as cigarettes and alcohol b/c i DO believe it is an excellent compariosn to make. for me, it is ALL about LEGALIZATION...and an adult's right to choose what substances he/she sees fit to use for their own highly personal reasons. if one is allowed the legal choice to do so with alcohol and cigareetes..i firmly believe the same right should be afforded for mj use b/c i see them as very similar substances.
in regards to all the 'other stuff'.....possibilities for self-abuse, trying to second-guess why someone wants to use said substances...honestly, none of my business.
btw - it ain't all black and white. all this 'maladaptive practices' etc...well it should be ANYone's choice how they live their life. what one sees as 'maladaptive' another sees as how they want to be. personally, i think a LOT of what is said here, while not entirely dismissing it...i also say, it is not 100% true, or at the very least...not 100% agreed upon nor even considered by all in the scientific/pshcological/medical community. not saying one cannot value perspectives outside of said fields....but it also holds true that SOME of us look to said fields, and said educated experts in such fields.....and not these other outside sources. bottomline..we ALL can find varying sources to support our beliefs. some i would argue to hold more 'truth' than others, but i will simply say...one should not hold their personal sources/beliefs as the ONLY ones for all. and yes..i've read about this 98% numerous times...and seen the sources of said information a few times as well...and yet, i still dismiss it. so no, i don't see that or a lot presented here as 'fact'....and honestly, for me, it takes the idea of legalization a bit too far.
but hey, if that is the course this discussion is taking, c'est la vie. no more interest. i have no desire to discuss ad nauseum, and in circles...about 'human potential' etc, etc. i wantedreal reasons for/against legalization....not hypothesis and possibilities, not living to potential, etc, etc. THAT is a personal choice...not something that should be legislated. haha.
btw - john bradshaw is not the end-all be-all of sources, especially for me. great you hold his work and opinion to such high esteem...many of us do not. i look to more educated scientists, and i think this has come up in the past as well. not to say one who is NOT a scientist cannot come up with knowledgeable/informed hypothesis, disseminate information, etc....but yes, i do look towards those who have the terminal degrees in their fields...the true scientists....for what i would consider the truly educated, expert opinions.
Yeah, the crazy irony is that it's LIFE, iself, that holds people to this standard. I'm just the messenger. We choose non-adaptive or maladaptive behaviour, we get the consequences. We paralyze ourselves. Hey, it can even be fun at times. For me, the deep, wrenching pain was more than I could bear--I branched off into insanity. On the flipside though, I was also able to systematically heal it, by knowing it was possible and by following evolution (progress).
People choose given the variables in their lives and then they get the consequences of their actions. It it works, great. The problem is with these catch-22 situations. People paralyze their own thoughts and awareness. Then they therefore can't recognize their thoughts are paralyzed because their thoughts are paralyzed. So it gets tricky. Life evolves, though, and provides ways around that if we can stay even remotely awake to watch for ways to grow and learn. If we numb ourselves into the usual accepted and perpetuated unconsciousness, we choose to stay unconscious, acting out our dramas and our scripts. It's fair play. I long ago accepted that many people will continue to stay unconscious and to live the consequences of maladaption. It's just the way it is. I don't make the rules. I do attempt to work with them and evolution, however, and influence people.
I'm talking about human potential. You are the one who has carved it into perfection or degradation. Good/bad. Right, or worthy of degradation. Most people cannot speak "realism". It's part of the same problem--crippled processes. You can get out of the church, but the only way that false dualism is resolved is by accepting that it resides deep inside ourselves. Only then can we work it out--by resolving it the distortions we have continued to perpetuate in imbalance.
I've answered the 98% thing to you numerous times in the past, but obviously you were unwilling or unable to listen or hear.
how do you know you're not paralyzed and just don't know it now? and who made you the judge of what behaviors paralyze people and what behaviors do not? and who said paralyzing our emotions ipso facto prevents us from living in a very productive manner. i see no evidence that a behavior that paralyzes emotions is by default maladaptive. and your measure of human potential is utterly subjective... some abstract and shadowy concept of internal peace (or condescending smugness in your case). by many other barometers, those who behave in ways you consider maladaptive still thrive in society. you're still judging based on your own preconceived ideas and values and trying to pass them off as absolute fact or truth.
and you still have not offered one shred of evidence as to why marijuana should be held to a much more restrictive social stigma than other substances that play into maladaptive behaviors.
Cellular Damage: Marijuana and its potent chemical THC cause physical changes in the user's body at the cellular level. These cell abnormalities alter normal cell division and affect the genetic makeup of new cells. They lower cell immunity, increasing the possibility of viral infections among users.
Nervous System Effects: THC causes an enlargement of the areas between nerve cells, resulting in poor transmission of nerve impulses between these cells.
Respiratory Damage: Marijuana is harmful to the entire respiratory system, from the sinus cavities to the air sacs within the lungs. Marijuana smoke is even more harmful than tobacco smoke, and users have a much higher incidence of respiratory disease than nonusers.
Other respiratory problems associated with marijuana use include:
Cardiovascular Effects: Smoking one marijuana cigarette has the immediate effect of increasing heart rate and blood pressure as much as 50 percent. Marijuana increases the amount of toxic carbon monoxide in the blood, thereby reducing the amount of oxygen reaching the heart. Increased blood pressure and changes in the blood vessels are reflected by the typical red or bloodshot eyes of the marijuana user. Chest pains have been attributed to marijuana use. People who suffer from angina, high blood pressure, diabetes, or other heart problems are at even greater risk smoking marijuana.
Damage to Reproductive Systems: Marijuana can have far-reaching effects on the reproductive systems of both men and women.
While marijuana was long-considered not to be physically addictive, most scientists now believe that the hallmarks of physical addiction, including tolerance and withdrawal may occur with long-term marijuana use. Certainly, regular users can develop a psychological dependence no different from other addictions. Those who are psychologically dependent can have difficulty limiting their use of the drug and can experience unpleasant side effects such as anxiety, insomnia and irritability when denied access to marijuana. http://www.lpac.ca/English/Main/Drugmanual_chapter4.aspx
again, none of this supports your stance that marijuana should be deemed more dangerous and thus controlled more closely than other substances.
My interpretation of the facts is because every time I mention valid information about harmful marijuana effects, people have tried to segue into the "alcohol is worse" argument. People have tried to get me to stop sharing my view. And others have used personal attacks, degradation, and false arguments (logical fallacies). It has seemed that certain people are not comfortable with hearing the harmful effects of marijuana.
i will not pretend to speak for others who have posted, but i know why *I* brought up alcohol and tobacco in my posts. i was using said substances as examples that are completely LEGAL to use. seems a fair point of comparison to make. even you in some of your quoted sources, have direct links comparing tobacco and mj for example...so even these trusted sources of yours see fit to compare and contrast.
The alcohol arguments are completely valid on their own--100%. I've agreed all along that alcohol is comparable.
When people are drawing conclusions that I'm for alcohol and prohibition and are therefore tying up their own arguments with mine, attributing to me things I did not say, that's where I have distanced myself from the alcohol issue, and questioned the intentions of the posters with my personal assumptions.
it does seem however, read other posts...we are talking of 2 different things. it seems to me, and this is ony my impression...that you are not? arguing a for/against stance for the legalization of mj? merely discussion the possible negative ramifications of use? is that it?
Yes.
I stated my purpose awhile back in this thread...that I was speaking to the "the negative side of marijuana" as the original poster asked for (whether with ironic intent or not).
as i've said here a couple times already, i fully agre with the possibility of abuse, and negative consequences. i then compared such to LEGAL substances in use/approved for use...today...such as cigarettes and alcohol b/c i DO believe it is an excellent compariosn to make. for me, it is ALL about LEGALIZATION...and an adult's right to choose what substances he/she sees fit to use for their own highly personal reasons. if one is allowed the legal choice to do so with alcohol and cigareetes..i firmly believe the same right should be afforded for mj use b/c i see them as very similar substances.
I hear you. And I hear your point about the alcohol argument, because you are not tangling it up with my issues.
For me, the legalization issue comes in when I point to my understanding of why many are not for legalization--that they feel in good faith they would compromise their own values in an unhealthy way to support such a thing. Therefore the opposing forces prevent legalization. I support the empowerment of all people. And when there is a majority in terms of thought/word/deed, the law reflects that. And I can understand that given the reality at this time. Ultimately, I see humanity moving into less win/lose positions which ironically are characteristic of co-dependency. We will learn to have win/win ones as we learn to resolve these conflicts, where each person becomes empowered and when we change our laws to support that.
in regards to all the 'other stuff'.....possibilities for self-abuse, trying to second-guess why someone wants to use said substances...honestly, none of my business.
I agree 100% in my personal life. In terms of public debate, the known and understood dynamics of substance abuse at this time (in terms of expert psychological/medical opinion) are a valid negative aspect of marijuana use.
btw - it ain't all black and white. all this 'maladaptive practices' etc...well it should be ANYone's choice how they live their life. what one sees as 'maladaptive' another sees as how they want to be.
What is maladaptive is what is maladaptive. I agree however that we all do the best we can, and make our own choices, and no one individual holds the market on authority or truth.
personally, i think a LOT of what is said here, while not entirely dismissing it...i also say, it is not 100% true, or at the very least...not 100% agreed upon nor even considered by all in the scientific/pshcological/medical community. not saying one cannot value perspectives outside of said fields....but it also holds true that SOME of us look to said fields, and said educated experts in such fields.....and not these other outside sources. bottomline..we ALL can find varying sources to support our beliefs. some i would argue to hold more 'truth' than others, but i will simply say...one should not hold their personal sources/beliefs as the ONLY ones for all. and yes..i've read about this 98% numerous times...and seen the sources of said information a few times as well...and yet, i still dismiss it. so no, i don't see that or a lot presented here as 'fact'....and honestly, for me, it takes the idea of legalization a bit too far.
but hey, if that is the course this discussion is taking, c'est la vie. no more interest. i have no desire to discuss ad nauseum, and in circles...about 'human potential' etc, etc. i wantedreal reasons for/against legalization....not hypothesis and possibilities, not living to potential, etc, etc. THAT is a personal choice...not something that should be legislated. haha.
btw - john bradshaw is not the end-all be-all of sources, especially for me. great you hold his work and opinion to such high esteem...many of us do not. i look to more educated scientists, and i think this has come up in the past as well. not to say one who is NOT a scientist cannot come up with knowledgeable/informed hypothesis, disseminate information, etc....but yes, i do look towards those who have the terminal degrees in their fields...the true scientists....for what i would consider the truly educated, expert opinions.
And I completely support people hearing the information AND discerning for themselves what works and what does not. I support people gravitating towards information they resonate with depending on where they are, and depending on their own inner purposes, which outsiders are not privy to. I support people making choices they are comfortable with for their own purposes and letting go of what does not appeal to them.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
how do you know you're not paralyzed and just don't know it now? and who made you the judge of what behaviors paralyze people and what behaviors do not? and who said paralyzing our emotions ipso facto prevents us from living in a very productive manner. i see no evidence that a behavior that paralyzes emotions is by default maladaptive. and your measure of human potential is utterly subjective... some abstract and shadowy concept of internal peace (or condescending smugness in your case). by many other barometers, those who behave in ways you consider maladaptive still thrive in society. you're still judging based on your own preconceived ideas and values and trying to pass them off as absolute fact or truth.
and you still have not offered one shred of evidence as to why marijuana should be held to a much more restrictive social stigma than other substances that play into maladaptive behaviors.
It sounds like you've got some issues with the going knowledge on co-dependency and substance abuse. I'll let you work out your own issues.
I'm fully aware that I have issues I am unconscious of that will unfold as my life progresses. It's you (and apparently Drowned Out) who have elevated me to the position of arrogance or "perfection" with your personal and erroneous judgments. It's always valid for me to share my point of view, and to present information I have learned through experience, or have found through research--it's called being *me*. When you don't get how balanced and fair that is, it shows me your imbalanced perspective.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
again, none of this supports your stance that marijuana should be deemed more dangerous and thus controlled more closely than other substances.
EXACTLY....EXACTLY.....EXACTLY.
pages and pages of 'stuff'....and ALL of it, personal CHOICE issues. i am not arguing in the least that mj is NOT harmful, of course it is! however, all this other 'stuff' it being maladaptive, balh, blah blah.....if you even believe/support such line of thinking, doesn't even MATTER in ths discussion of legality. i'd love to read actual, valid reasons why an adult should not be allowed the CHOICE for legal access to mj, especially given ALL the info out there that yes, shows it has possible negative consequences, possible 'issues' for some....but overall, is in line with a few currently LEGAL substances.
btw - all this pseudo-science.....i really find it difficult, hell, impossible to believe...that b/c mj is legal in the netherlands, that a good portion of the country is 'maladapted'. or not living up to their potential - man i'd love to see a study demonstating any such thing, of course won't happen b/c it isn't true!.....nor the MANY people on this board, hell, a few highly respected posters right in this forum, who i know from posts who indulge regularly...are 'maladaptive'...so yea, i just don't buy it. some may believe in all that, and hell, for truly hard-science issues, i do too.....but all this soft/fuzzy/pseudo science errrr....stuff.....just doesn't fly with me. i see no 'proof'...just b/c a few people want to call it maladaptive, doesn't make it so.
c'est la vie....i was hoping for more than just personal opinion, and actual rationale. your personal choices or rationale are just that....personal, and have no business in legislation. beyond the negative affects/possibilites that we know of, what honest answer does one truly believe for being against legalization? i haven't seen one iota of a realistic reason. eh well.
*edit - WOW...conor and i agree, again.....:eek: hahahaha.
i guess as long as we keep off the whole male/female dynamic...again we see how we're not so different afterall. haha.
how do you know you're not paralyzed and just don't know it now? and who made you the judge of what behaviors paralyze people and what behaviors do not? and who said paralyzing our emotions ipso facto prevents us from living in a very productive manner. i see no evidence that a behavior that paralyzes emotions is by default maladaptive. and your measure of human potential is utterly subjective... some abstract and shadowy concept of internal peace (or condescending smugness in your case). by many other barometers, those who behave in ways you consider maladaptive still thrive in society. you're still judging based on your own preconceived ideas and values and trying to pass them off as absolute fact or truth.
and you still have not offered one shred of evidence as to why marijuana should be held to a much more restrictive social stigma than other substances that play into maladaptive behaviors.
again, none of this supports your stance that marijuana should be deemed more dangerous and thus controlled more closely than other substances.
EXACTLY....EXACTLY.....EXACTLY.
pages and pages of 'stuff'....and ALL of it, personal CHOICE issues. i am not arguing in the least that mj is NOT harmful, of course it is! however, all this other 'stuff' it being maladaptive, balh, blah blah.....if you even believe/support such line of thinking, doesn't even MATTER in ths discussion of legality. i'd love to read actual, valid reasons why an adult should not be allowed the CHOICE for legal access to mj, especially given ALL the info out there that yes, shows it has possible negative consequences, possible 'issues' for some....but overall, is in line with a few currently LEGAL substances.
btw - all this pseudo-science.....i really find it difficult, hell, impossible to believe...that b/c mj is legal in the netherlands, that a good portion of the country is 'maladapted'. or not living up to their potential - man i'd love to see a study demonstating any such thing, of course won't happen b/c it isn't true!.....nor the MANY people on this board, hell, a few highly respected posters right in this forum, who i know from posts who indulge regularly...are 'maladaptive'...so yea, i just don't buy it. some may believe in all that, and hell, for truly hard-science issues, i do too.....but all this soft/fuzzy/pseudo science errrr....stuff.....just doesn't fly with me. i see no 'proof'...just b/c a few people want to call it maladaptive, doesn't make it so.
c'est la vie....i was hoping for more than just personal opinion, and actual rationale. your personal choices or rationale are just that....personal, and have no business in legislation. beyond the negative affects/possibilites that we know of, what honest answer does one truly believe for being against legalization? i haven't seen one iota of a realistic reason. eh well.
Okay...you guys continue to deceive yourselves about what I am saying so that you can be "right". The fact is there is no "right". You are transplanting false ideas into what I am saying.
I dare you....both of you...to find one place in this thread--or any thread on this board, for that matter--where I have personally said marijuana is more dangerous than any other substance.
This is typical of codependent behaviour. You have both confused your own arguments with my own, and therefore cannot discern what I've actually said. Go ahead...I dare you............
No matter what I say, you continue to show are unable to hear.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Oh, that's right soulsinging and dream....you CAN'T find where I've personally said marijuana is worse than any other vice, because I've NOT said it. Ever.
Because I am supporting a different view than your own, doesn't mean I am degrading your view. If you are taking the information I am presenting personally, I'm not responsible for that. I'm responsible for sharing it. If you are internalizing that information and feeling inner conflict, that's not about me. That's about your own inner conflict.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Oh, that's right soulsinging and dream....you CAN'T find where I've personally said marijuana is worse than any other vice, because I've NOT said it. Ever.
Because I am supporting a different view than your own, doesn't mean I am degrading your view. If you are taking the information I am presenting personally, I'm not responsible for that. I'm responsible for sharing it. If you are internalizing that information and feeling inner conflict, that's not about me. That's about your own inner conflict.
i never suggested you did. i agree with much of what you present for 'negatives' of mj use.....the medical side anyway. the pseudo-sceince stuff, which is unproven and at most an informed opinion....just holds no weight for me, so i disagree with it. i also see no 'purpose' for it in regards to legalization. i am seperating personal choice and rational efrom legislation..as i personally believe should be done. i see NO evidence presented yet that you or anyone has provided as a valid reason to deny legalization.
and you can support whatever view you want, makes no difference to me. i may view your sources with a critical eye and thus they hold little to no weight for me...or your reasons, which of course you are entitled to...and of course express.....hold no weight for me either. that's debate. i was hoping for more is all. no one else seems to be offering an arguement i actually have to counter. i don't have any *conflict* merely expressing my opinions on information presented/shared. anything else......that's your inference, not mine.
you seemed to miss MY point...and i didn't even try and dress it up with psychobabble. not once, ever, did i say you said it was worse. i simply countered that it isn't...and therefore...if we agree it's no worse...well then, why not legalization? it's not a difficult question. for all the 'other stuff'....about maladaptation, not meeting human potential or anything else....firstly, makes no difference to me, b/c all THAT falls under 'personal choice' in my book...thus no place in legislation. which i think, i have repeated numerous times.
i am well and happy and quite well-adjusted, thank you.
again, none of this supports your stance that marijuana should be deemed more dangerous and thus controlled more closely than other substances.
EXACTLY....EXACTLY.....EXACTLY .
To me this is certainly suggests that you agree with soulsinging, when he was falsely and delusionally disputing an argument I did not make.
When you jump on that bandwagon, you also "suggest" by your behaviour and adamant support, that you are falsely and delusionally disputing an argument that I did not make.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Oh, and another reason I thought you were agreeing with soulsinging when he was falsely and delusionally disputing an argument I did not make was when you said this:
you seemed to miss MY point...and i didn't even try and dress it up with psychobabble. not once, ever, did i say you said it was worse. i simply countered that it isn't...and therefore...if we agree it's no worse...well then, why not legalization? it's not a difficult question. for all the 'other stuff'....about maladaptation, not meeting human potential or anything else....firstly, makes no difference to me, b/c all THAT falls under 'personal choice' in my book...thus no place in legislation. which i think, i have repeated numerous times.
i am well and happy and quite well-adjusted, thank you.
No, I didn't miss your point. I read it over and over in this thread along with the similar ones. I merely support a different view. Both views stand.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
To me this is certainly suggests that you agree with soulsinging, when he was falsely and delusionally disputing an argument I did not make.
When you jump on that bandwagon, you also "suggest" by your behaviour and adamant support, that you are falsely and delusionally disputing an argument that I did not make.
true. mea culpa. it was one sentence. i was taking it all in with EVERYTHING he posted. so, i should've edited out that ONE sentence, but all the rest...100% agreement. actually, i guess in honesty i wasn't even looking at it towards 'you'....although of course yes, he clearly said 'your stance'. i was looking at it in a general sense...and that nothing you hav offered even remotely suggests why it should not be a legal substance. sorry i didn't get all caught up in the semantics..i was focusing on the general sentiment/thoughts presented in the post. and, barring the one fragment of 'your stance'...i fully agree with his assessment. next time i will be sure to disseminate each post more carefully lest i align myself with thoughts i disagree.
bottomline.....barring that one gaffe......i completely agree with the thoughts/statements presented.
anyhooooo....it is evident this subject shall continue to go round and round with all the pseudo-science.....and i personally think 1. it has no place in the discussion 2. no one else is paricipating in discussion/offering up new...and possibly interesting/educated counterpoints 3. i stated my thoughts on it ad nauseum as well
so 4. i shall move on b/c there is nothing of interest left to 'debate' here..since it clearly isnt going to be about legalization and that's all i am personally interested in discussing...not the negatives for health....nor personal opinions about maladaptive behaviors or human potentials...personal, personal, personal....and it simply doens't interest me for this subject.
btw - no bandwagons here. the fact that i disagree with .02% of his post...that you graciously pointed out....i still adamently support all the rest, so i feel just fine aligning myself with that overall train of thought. if my 'behaviors' align me with what i consider good reason, i am all for it. the rest, i simply couldn't care less what one might 'infer' from that.
Oh, and another reason I thought you were agreeing with soulsinging when he was falsely and delusionally disputing an argument I did not make was when you said this:
yea? read what was quoted below it. i fully agree with it 100%.
it makes perfect sense to me. hell, i'll even quote it again!
how do you know you're not paralyzed and just don't know it now? and who made you the judge of what behaviors paralyze people and what behaviors do not? and who said paralyzing our emotions ipso facto prevents us from living in a very productive manner. i see no evidence that a behavior that paralyzes emotions is by default maladaptive. and your measure of human potential is utterly subjective... some abstract and shadowy concept of internal peace (or condescending smugness in your case). by many other barometers, those who behave in ways you consider maladaptive still thrive in society. you're still judging based on your own preconceived ideas and values and trying to pass them off as absolute fact or truth.
and you still have not offered one shred of evidence as to why marijuana should be held to a much more restrictive social stigma than other substances that play into maladaptive behaviors.
however, if you are hung up about the last sentence...again, i'll give ya that. i take that as a 'general'...not you specifically. whatever. we're no longer even debating the TOPIC...but semantics...and hell, even for the topic...it's gone.
btw - i have all of 10? posts in this thread to your what...50+? so i don't think i was too redundant...especially since many times i asked questions, etc...never addressed. eh well. brevity never my strong suit...and sure, redunancy at times too. c'est la vie!
The following may sound dumb, but it's how I feel a lot of the time.
I started this thread as a bit of a joke and a bit of a complaint. If you don't get the joke, just go read the OP again. My personal view on MJ is that:
-it is less destructive than alcohol and tobacco.
-daily abuse of MJ can be unhealthy, but not as unhealthy as daily abuse of tobacco/alcohol
- the primary reason it is kept illegal is because cigarettes are profitable to the economy. MJ would cut into those profits and not add as much to the economy due to the homegrown factor.
- the mental health benefits of MJ outweigh the negative aspects if used in moderation (by far)
- you should not ever get high then operate a vehicle nor large machinery...just like alcohol
- I think it would be a good law (albeit impossible to enforce) that states legal consuption of alcohol and marijuana would be limited to weekends. I know everyone's schedule is different, but it would be cool if the government could find a way to allow people the privilege of getting high/drunk but still take a firm action against addiction.
true. mea culpa. it was one sentence. i was taking it all in with EVERYTHING he posted. so, i should've edited out that ONE sentence, but all the rest...100% agreement.
Dream...that was his entire post. You quoted the entire post and adamantly stated "EXACTLY" then reiterated it two times for good measure! You can't pretend you weren't totally supporting the false and delusional argument.
actually, i guess in honesty i wasn't even looking at it towards 'you'....although of course yes, he clearly said 'your stance'.
Now that part I can understand...that you were not consciously intending to support a delusional argument when you in fact were doing so.
i was looking at it in a general sense...and that nothing you hav offered even remotely suggests why it should not be a legal substance.
That's because that is not my argument. I'm not trying to prove why it should be legal. That's not at all my style. That's what you and soulsinging keep erroneously assuming despite all of my protestations to the contrary.
My argument and your argument are separate. They are not co-dependent.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The following may sound dumb, but it's how I feel a lot of the time.
I started this thread as a bit of a joke and a bit of a complaint. If you don't get the joke, just go read the OP again. My personal view on MJ is that:
-it is less destructive than alcohol and tobacco.
-daily abuse of MJ can be unhealthy, but not as unhealthy as daily abuse of tobacco/alcohol
- the primary reason it is kept illegal is because cigarettes are profitable to the economy. MJ would cut into those profits and not add as much to the economy due to the homegrown factor.
- the mental health benefits of MJ outweigh the negative aspects if used in moderation (by far)
- you should not ever get high then operate a vehicle nor large machinery...just like alcohol
- I think it would be a good law (albeit impossible to enforce) that states legal consuption of alcohol and marijuana would be limited to weekends. I know everyone's schedule is different, but it would be cool if the government could find a way to allow people the privilege of getting high/drunk but still take a firm action against addiction.
And the irony is I live in Waterloo also.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
Again your unrealistic conflicts with your own imagination is evident when you interpret my presenting information as presenting my way as the "only way to live". You're obviously going on ignorance here--or you'd have noticed that I've already said this in this very thread. Of course when you are focused on undermining me, you're not going to focus on understanding:
Or
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Codependency can be understood as a characteristic of an adult who is contaminated by childish dependency needs. The reason almost everyone identifies with many characteristics of codependency is that the monarchial patriarchal rules...created an environment wherein children could not get their dependency needs met.
When children are nurtured properly, their developmental dependency needs are, on some level, met. This is never achieved perfectly, but certainly in a manner that allows them to grow into adulthood with a certain degree of autonomy. When these dependency needs are not met, children become adults with a child's "neediness"....
A co-dependent person is an adult with mild to severe developmental deficits. These developmental deficits are the reason adult children experience spontaneous age regressions. (ed: acting out childish behaviour in varying manners) These regressions take place primarily in significant adult relationships."
~John Bradshaw, "Bradshaw: On the Family"
These developmental deficits can also be healed, by choosing to give up the substance or behavioural abuses that hold the dysfunction in place. By doing so we create a vacuum that creates the development of new patterns, which if we choose so, can be adult and healthy in terms of managing.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
this is ridiculous. you're holding humans to a standard of flawless behavior that is impossible and always will be. this is life and a real world, where bad shit happens and people deal with it however they can. you keep mentioning progress, but talking only about perfection. and you still have not shown any reason why marijuana is such a distinct impediment to such progress that it deserves to be treated differently from other impediments to progress that are not so heavily regulated.
am i right in assuming bradshaw is the man with the 98% of people are fucked up statistic? sounds to me like drumming up business... if we convince ourselves we all have emotional problems, we're all going to have to buy a lot of therapy. me, i like to think humans are behaving pretty much as we always have and there is no 2% elite (as you seem to so enjoy lording over us) who have no problems, no dysfunction, and are flawless models of advanced evolutionary human behavior. the idea is absurd, and utterly dependent on the lense one is looking through when defining dysfunction.
People choose given the variables in their lives and then they get the consequences of their actions. It it works, great. The problem is with these catch-22 situations. People paralyze their own thoughts and awareness. Then they therefore can't recognize their thoughts are paralyzed because their thoughts are paralyzed. So it gets tricky. Life evolves, though, and provides ways around that if we can stay even remotely awake to watch for ways to grow and learn. If we numb ourselves into the usual accepted and perpetuated unconsciousness, we choose to stay unconscious, acting out our dramas and our scripts. It's fair play. I long ago accepted that many people will continue to stay unconscious and to live the consequences of maladaption. It's just the way it is. I don't make the rules. I do attempt to work with them and evolution, however, and influence people.
I'm talking about human potential. You are the one who has carved it into perfection or degradation. Good/bad. Right, or worthy of degradation. Most people cannot speak "realism". It's part of the same problem--crippled processes. You can get out of the church, but the only way that false dualism is resolved is by accepting that it resides deep inside ourselves. Only then can we work it out--by resolving it the distortions we have continued to perpetuate in imbalance.
I've answered the 98% thing to you numerous times in the past, but obviously you were unwilling or unable to listen or hear.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i can not believe i lost my job because i tested positive, i was not hurting anyone.
The requirements don't even have to be drug-related. My company prohibits me from making comments on public forums regarding my company. Heck, I probably just violated for saying we have that policy....
the conflict is that most jobs worth "keeping" do inforce their policies.
from my experience, the people who are dumbfounded for losing their job for testing positive realize that this will follow them.
Cellular Damage: Marijuana and its potent chemical THC cause physical changes in the user's body at the cellular level. These cell abnormalities alter normal cell division and affect the genetic makeup of new cells. They lower cell immunity, increasing the possibility of viral infections among users.
Nervous System Effects: THC causes an enlargement of the areas between nerve cells, resulting in poor transmission of nerve impulses between these cells.
Respiratory Damage: Marijuana is harmful to the entire respiratory system, from the sinus cavities to the air sacs within the lungs. Marijuana smoke is even more harmful than tobacco smoke, and users have a much higher incidence of respiratory disease than nonusers.
Other respiratory problems associated with marijuana use include:
Cardiovascular Effects: Smoking one marijuana cigarette has the immediate effect of increasing heart rate and blood pressure as much as 50 percent. Marijuana increases the amount of toxic carbon monoxide in the blood, thereby reducing the amount of oxygen reaching the heart. Increased blood pressure and changes in the blood vessels are reflected by the typical red or bloodshot eyes of the marijuana user. Chest pains have been attributed to marijuana use. People who suffer from angina, high blood pressure, diabetes, or other heart problems are at even greater risk smoking marijuana.
Damage to Reproductive Systems: Marijuana can have far-reaching effects on the reproductive systems of both men and women.
While marijuana was long-considered not to be physically addictive, most scientists now believe that the hallmarks of physical addiction, including tolerance and withdrawal may occur with long-term marijuana use. Certainly, regular users can develop a psychological dependence no different from other addictions. Those who are psychologically dependent can have difficulty limiting their use of the drug and can experience unpleasant side effects such as anxiety, insomnia and irritability when denied access to marijuana.
http://www.lpac.ca/English/Main/Drugmanual_chapter4.aspx
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
that's quite the assumption on your pat.
i will not pretend to speak for others who have posted, but i know why *I* brought up alcohol and tobacco in my posts. i was using said substances as examples that are completely LEGAL to use. seems a fair point of comparison to make. even you in some of your quoted sources, have direct links comparing tobacco and mj for example...so even these trusted sources of yours see fit to compare and contrast.
it does seem however, read other posts...we are talking of 2 different things. it seems to me, and this is ony my impression...that you are not? arguing a for/against stance for the legalization of mj? merely discussion the possible negative ramifications of use? is that it?
as i've said here a couple times already, i fully agre with the possibility of abuse, and negative consequences. i then compared such to LEGAL substances in use/approved for use...today...such as cigarettes and alcohol b/c i DO believe it is an excellent compariosn to make. for me, it is ALL about LEGALIZATION...and an adult's right to choose what substances he/she sees fit to use for their own highly personal reasons. if one is allowed the legal choice to do so with alcohol and cigareetes..i firmly believe the same right should be afforded for mj use b/c i see them as very similar substances.
in regards to all the 'other stuff'.....possibilities for self-abuse, trying to second-guess why someone wants to use said substances...honestly, none of my business.
btw - it ain't all black and white. all this 'maladaptive practices' etc...well it should be ANYone's choice how they live their life. what one sees as 'maladaptive' another sees as how they want to be. personally, i think a LOT of what is said here, while not entirely dismissing it...i also say, it is not 100% true, or at the very least...not 100% agreed upon nor even considered by all in the scientific/pshcological/medical community. not saying one cannot value perspectives outside of said fields....but it also holds true that SOME of us look to said fields, and said educated experts in such fields.....and not these other outside sources. bottomline..we ALL can find varying sources to support our beliefs. some i would argue to hold more 'truth' than others, but i will simply say...one should not hold their personal sources/beliefs as the ONLY ones for all. and yes..i've read about this 98% numerous times...and seen the sources of said information a few times as well...and yet, i still dismiss it. so no, i don't see that or a lot presented here as 'fact'....and honestly, for me, it takes the idea of legalization a bit too far.
but hey, if that is the course this discussion is taking, c'est la vie. no more interest. i have no desire to discuss ad nauseum, and in circles...about 'human potential' etc, etc. i wantedreal reasons for/against legalization....not hypothesis and possibilities, not living to potential, etc, etc. THAT is a personal choice...not something that should be legislated. haha.
btw - john bradshaw is not the end-all be-all of sources, especially for me. great you hold his work and opinion to such high esteem...many of us do not. i look to more educated scientists, and i think this has come up in the past as well. not to say one who is NOT a scientist cannot come up with knowledgeable/informed hypothesis, disseminate information, etc....but yes, i do look towards those who have the terminal degrees in their fields...the true scientists....for what i would consider the truly educated, expert opinions.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
how do you know you're not paralyzed and just don't know it now? and who made you the judge of what behaviors paralyze people and what behaviors do not? and who said paralyzing our emotions ipso facto prevents us from living in a very productive manner. i see no evidence that a behavior that paralyzes emotions is by default maladaptive. and your measure of human potential is utterly subjective... some abstract and shadowy concept of internal peace (or condescending smugness in your case). by many other barometers, those who behave in ways you consider maladaptive still thrive in society. you're still judging based on your own preconceived ideas and values and trying to pass them off as absolute fact or truth.
and you still have not offered one shred of evidence as to why marijuana should be held to a much more restrictive social stigma than other substances that play into maladaptive behaviors.
again, none of this supports your stance that marijuana should be deemed more dangerous and thus controlled more closely than other substances.
The alcohol arguments are completely valid on their own--100%. I've agreed all along that alcohol is comparable.
When people are drawing conclusions that I'm for alcohol and prohibition and are therefore tying up their own arguments with mine, attributing to me things I did not say, that's where I have distanced myself from the alcohol issue, and questioned the intentions of the posters with my personal assumptions.
Yes.
I stated my purpose awhile back in this thread...that I was speaking to the "the negative side of marijuana" as the original poster asked for (whether with ironic intent or not).
I hear you. And I hear your point about the alcohol argument, because you are not tangling it up with my issues.
For me, the legalization issue comes in when I point to my understanding of why many are not for legalization--that they feel in good faith they would compromise their own values in an unhealthy way to support such a thing. Therefore the opposing forces prevent legalization. I support the empowerment of all people. And when there is a majority in terms of thought/word/deed, the law reflects that. And I can understand that given the reality at this time. Ultimately, I see humanity moving into less win/lose positions which ironically are characteristic of co-dependency. We will learn to have win/win ones as we learn to resolve these conflicts, where each person becomes empowered and when we change our laws to support that.
I agree 100% in my personal life. In terms of public debate, the known and understood dynamics of substance abuse at this time (in terms of expert psychological/medical opinion) are a valid negative aspect of marijuana use.
What is maladaptive is what is maladaptive. I agree however that we all do the best we can, and make our own choices, and no one individual holds the market on authority or truth.
And I completely support people hearing the information AND discerning for themselves what works and what does not. I support people gravitating towards information they resonate with depending on where they are, and depending on their own inner purposes, which outsiders are not privy to. I support people making choices they are comfortable with for their own purposes and letting go of what does not appeal to them.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm fully aware that I have issues I am unconscious of that will unfold as my life progresses. It's you (and apparently Drowned Out) who have elevated me to the position of arrogance or "perfection" with your personal and erroneous judgments. It's always valid for me to share my point of view, and to present information I have learned through experience, or have found through research--it's called being *me*. When you don't get how balanced and fair that is, it shows me your imbalanced perspective.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
EXACTLY....EXACTLY.....EXACTLY.
pages and pages of 'stuff'....and ALL of it, personal CHOICE issues. i am not arguing in the least that mj is NOT harmful, of course it is! however, all this other 'stuff' it being maladaptive, balh, blah blah.....if you even believe/support such line of thinking, doesn't even MATTER in ths discussion of legality. i'd love to read actual, valid reasons why an adult should not be allowed the CHOICE for legal access to mj, especially given ALL the info out there that yes, shows it has possible negative consequences, possible 'issues' for some....but overall, is in line with a few currently LEGAL substances.
btw - all this pseudo-science.....i really find it difficult, hell, impossible to believe...that b/c mj is legal in the netherlands, that a good portion of the country is 'maladapted'. or not living up to their potential - man i'd love to see a study demonstating any such thing, of course won't happen b/c it isn't true!.....nor the MANY people on this board, hell, a few highly respected posters right in this forum, who i know from posts who indulge regularly...are 'maladaptive'...so yea, i just don't buy it. some may believe in all that, and hell, for truly hard-science issues, i do too.....but all this soft/fuzzy/pseudo science errrr....stuff.....just doesn't fly with me. i see no 'proof'...just b/c a few people want to call it maladaptive, doesn't make it so.
c'est la vie....i was hoping for more than just personal opinion, and actual rationale. your personal choices or rationale are just that....personal, and have no business in legislation. beyond the negative affects/possibilites that we know of, what honest answer does one truly believe for being against legalization? i haven't seen one iota of a realistic reason. eh well.
*edit - WOW...conor and i agree, again.....:eek: hahahaha.
i guess as long as we keep off the whole male/female dynamic...again we see how we're not so different afterall. haha.
well stated.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Okay...you guys continue to deceive yourselves about what I am saying so that you can be "right". The fact is there is no "right". You are transplanting false ideas into what I am saying.
I dare you....both of you...to find one place in this thread--or any thread on this board, for that matter--where I have personally said marijuana is more dangerous than any other substance.
This is typical of codependent behaviour. You have both confused your own arguments with my own, and therefore cannot discern what I've actually said. Go ahead...I dare you............
No matter what I say, you continue to show are unable to hear.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Because I am supporting a different view than your own, doesn't mean I am degrading your view. If you are taking the information I am presenting personally, I'm not responsible for that. I'm responsible for sharing it. If you are internalizing that information and feeling inner conflict, that's not about me. That's about your own inner conflict.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i never suggested you did. i agree with much of what you present for 'negatives' of mj use.....the medical side anyway. the pseudo-sceince stuff, which is unproven and at most an informed opinion....just holds no weight for me, so i disagree with it. i also see no 'purpose' for it in regards to legalization. i am seperating personal choice and rational efrom legislation..as i personally believe should be done. i see NO evidence presented yet that you or anyone has provided as a valid reason to deny legalization.
and you can support whatever view you want, makes no difference to me. i may view your sources with a critical eye and thus they hold little to no weight for me...or your reasons, which of course you are entitled to...and of course express.....hold no weight for me either. that's debate. i was hoping for more is all. no one else seems to be offering an arguement i actually have to counter. i don't have any *conflict* merely expressing my opinions on information presented/shared. anything else......that's your inference, not mine.
you seemed to miss MY point...and i didn't even try and dress it up with psychobabble. not once, ever, did i say you said it was worse. i simply countered that it isn't...and therefore...if we agree it's no worse...well then, why not legalization? it's not a difficult question. for all the 'other stuff'....about maladaptation, not meeting human potential or anything else....firstly, makes no difference to me, b/c all THAT falls under 'personal choice' in my book...thus no place in legislation. which i think, i have repeated numerous times.
i am well and happy and quite well-adjusted, thank you.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
To me this is certainly suggests that you agree with soulsinging, when he was falsely and delusionally disputing an argument I did not make.
When you jump on that bandwagon, you also "suggest" by your behaviour and adamant support, that you are falsely and delusionally disputing an argument that I did not make.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
xo
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
true. mea culpa. it was one sentence. i was taking it all in with EVERYTHING he posted. so, i should've edited out that ONE sentence, but all the rest...100% agreement. actually, i guess in honesty i wasn't even looking at it towards 'you'....although of course yes, he clearly said 'your stance'. i was looking at it in a general sense...and that nothing you hav offered even remotely suggests why it should not be a legal substance. sorry i didn't get all caught up in the semantics..i was focusing on the general sentiment/thoughts presented in the post. and, barring the one fragment of 'your stance'...i fully agree with his assessment. next time i will be sure to disseminate each post more carefully lest i align myself with thoughts i disagree.
bottomline.....barring that one gaffe......i completely agree with the thoughts/statements presented.
anyhooooo....it is evident this subject shall continue to go round and round with all the pseudo-science.....and i personally think 1. it has no place in the discussion 2. no one else is paricipating in discussion/offering up new...and possibly interesting/educated counterpoints 3. i stated my thoughts on it ad nauseum as well
so 4. i shall move on b/c there is nothing of interest left to 'debate' here..since it clearly isnt going to be about legalization and that's all i am personally interested in discussing...not the negatives for health....nor personal opinions about maladaptive behaviors or human potentials...personal, personal, personal....and it simply doens't interest me for this subject.
btw - no bandwagons here. the fact that i disagree with .02% of his post...that you graciously pointed out....i still adamently support all the rest, so i feel just fine aligning myself with that overall train of thought. if my 'behaviors' align me with what i consider good reason, i am all for it. the rest, i simply couldn't care less what one might 'infer' from that.
yea? read what was quoted below it. i fully agree with it 100%.
it makes perfect sense to me. hell, i'll even quote it again!
however, if you are hung up about the last sentence...again, i'll give ya that. i take that as a 'general'...not you specifically. whatever. we're no longer even debating the TOPIC...but semantics...and hell, even for the topic...it's gone.
btw - i have all of 10? posts in this thread to your what...50+? so i don't think i was too redundant...especially since many times i asked questions, etc...never addressed. eh well. brevity never my strong suit...and sure, redunancy at times too. c'est la vie!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I started this thread as a bit of a joke and a bit of a complaint. If you don't get the joke, just go read the OP again. My personal view on MJ is that:
-it is less destructive than alcohol and tobacco.
-daily abuse of MJ can be unhealthy, but not as unhealthy as daily abuse of tobacco/alcohol
- the primary reason it is kept illegal is because cigarettes are profitable to the economy. MJ would cut into those profits and not add as much to the economy due to the homegrown factor.
- the mental health benefits of MJ outweigh the negative aspects if used in moderation (by far)
- you should not ever get high then operate a vehicle nor large machinery...just like alcohol
- I think it would be a good law (albeit impossible to enforce) that states legal consuption of alcohol and marijuana would be limited to weekends. I know everyone's schedule is different, but it would be cool if the government could find a way to allow people the privilege of getting high/drunk but still take a firm action against addiction.
post of the day right here, and yes i do have a light do you have papers..
Now that part I can understand...that you were not consciously intending to support a delusional argument when you in fact were doing so.
That's because that is not my argument. I'm not trying to prove why it should be legal. That's not at all my style. That's what you and soulsinging keep erroneously assuming despite all of my protestations to the contrary.
My argument and your argument are separate. They are not co-dependent.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!