|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
posted October 15, 2003 01:15 AM |
|
|
Funny how I have to defend both sides here 
Quote:
btw,you can`t be addicted to marijuana
You can, it's just not as addictive as they say. In fact, you can be addicted to just about anything. Some big ones that you may not know about: suggar, coke, cheese (sorry RMS).
____________
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted October 15, 2003 01:21 AM |
|
|
she is right though.
No one really gets physicaly, or mentaly dependent on it (addicted) but many ppl like the feeling it gives.. just like alot of you get feeling from alcohol accept alcohol can manifest your body and make you hurt for a drink.
Who are a bunch of ppl who say no to legalize? No one who is concerned with me or my life. Why should yoouu have say in what I can and cant do?
____________
What are you up to
|
|
burgessia
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2003 01:28 AM |
|
|
and a very good thing about marijuana is that it calms you down.some people are ok when they are sober,but they become violent when they are drunk.but when they smoke marijuana,they are NEVER violent. my neighbour is like that...he drinks a lot,beats his girlfriend (and everybody else), he set his house on fire etc.but i saw him once when he was stoned...he was all friendly, nice, he even looked a little shy...
____________
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted October 15, 2003 01:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No one really gets physicaly, or mentaly dependent on it (addicted) but many ppl like the feeling it gives..
Some people like the feeling it gives so much that they lose the ability to cope with the world without it. That is mental addiction.
The difference, in my mind, between marijuana and tobacco is that tobacco does not cloud the mind. Nicotine's a stimulant, like caffine. It may be highly addictive and causes major health issues, but it doesn't cause large-scale changes in behavior. You can drive under nicotine, talk reasonably under nicotine, walk around under its "influence" and no one will know the difference (unless they smell you, which can be a problem...). But you can tell when someone is high. By that reasoning, I consider alcohol a better parallel with marijuana than tobacco.
This is a sticky issue, and I don't have a solid position on it yet. I do think federal and state law should agree -- as it is, people are just getting confused.
With regards to poisoning the air: Smoking tobacco in public, where others will be exposed to it for extended periods, is already highly discouraged in many venues in the States. As a non-smoker, I have a lot more freedom in finding a place to breath without smoke than a smoker does in finding a place to produce it. 
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
burgessia
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2003 02:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I do think federal and state law should agree -- as it is, people are just getting confused.
i think that the only confused people are those,who don`t have a clue about marijuana...
and why is it important if people can see that you are high?it`s non of their business...
____________
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted October 15, 2003 02:51 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 14 Oct 2003
|
Quote:
i think that the only confused people are those,who don`t have a clue about marijuana..
And I think you misinterpreted my statement. I am referring to US law. The Californian and Alaskan medical-use marijuana legislations are in conflict with federal law. People -- sick people who would be eligible for medical use -- hear that their state has passed these pieces of legislation but don't realize that the federal law superceeds the state's. This is confusing.
By 'being able to tell' that one is high, I mean that marijuana causes significantly altered behavior pattern. It's not a matter of 'business.' It's a matter of changes in judgement, and so on. You can safely drive a car under the influence of nicotine, and nicotine doesn't cause you to do drastic things that you otherwise would not do, aside from ingest more nicotine. Alcohol and marijuana, on the other hand, do cause changes. You can tell when someone is drunk or high because they behave differently. They cannot drive a car, for instance (due to impaired judgement and slowed reaction times). When a person acts oddly, others notice. That's what I was talking about. To me, that is a major separation between substances like tobacco and caffine and substances like alcohol and marijuana.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
burgessia
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2003 03:23 AM |
|
|
in a recent NHTSA study, the only statistically significant outcome associated with marijuana was that drivers drove more slowly.drivers under the influence of marijuana tended to decrease their speed and approach other cars more cautiously.
“There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. However, in driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment - consistently less than produced by low moderate doses of alcohol and many legal medications. In contrast to alcohol, which tends to increase risky driving practices, marijuana tends to make subjects more cautious. Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society.”
(authors Lynn Zimmer, Ph.D. and John P. Morgan, M.D. research on marijuana and driving)
i think that there is no reason why marijuana shuold be illegal...
____________
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
posted October 15, 2003 04:35 AM |
|
|
say NO to marijuana...
Marijuana should stay illegal! Once again this is another attempt to make young people become drug addicts and turn themselves into chaotic hooligans! Do you think that smokers and drug users are more likely to break laws than non-smokers?
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted October 15, 2003 06:30 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 15 Oct 2003
|
Okay, first off, burgessia, you're picking on a small bit of what I said and avoiding the main jist. I find this annoying. My point was not high drivers vs. drunk drivers; presumably driving under the influence of either substance would remain illegal regardless of changes in the legal status of marijuana. My point was that alcohol is a better comparison to marijuana than tobacco. People behave differently on alcohol and marijuana than they do when sober (personality-changing, so to speak); tobacco does not cause this change. Driving impairment was merely an illustration of this rather obvious difference.
Alcohol is currently legal and quite accessible. If the law is going to be consistent, they should legalize marijuana. My reservations come in because I question the wisdom of having any personality-altering substances so readily available. I've seen people ruined by alcohol. Marijuana may not be as destructive, but does society really need another drug like this commercially available?
The medical use of marijuana, I regard as similar to "using" red wine to decrease chances of heart attack. It's a specialized group of people who need it, and they should have access.
However, when such substances are available to the general population, some will abuse them. I'm speaking of alcohol in particular, here. Those who abuse it cause damage both to themselves and to all around them. On the other hand, a lot of people drink without causing problems at all. How does one balance the "rights" of those who will not abuse the substance against the destruction caused by those who will?
I see substances as being on a spectrum of effect, and there is an elusive line somewhere on that spectrum between "okay" and "not okay." Hard illegal drugs such as cocaine are clearly on one side of this line: processed cocaine virtually requires abuse, promotes destructive behavior, and easily becomes deadly. Soft drugs like caffine are clearly on the other side: caffine promotes productive energy, doesn't change personality, and is difficult to overdose. I think that nicotine is somewhere in the shady side of "okay," marijuana is shadier than nicotine, and alcohol straddles the line. Because alcohol and marijuana are both personality-changing, I think of them as connected, so my ambiguity regarding alcohol translates to an ambiguity about marijuana as well, despite the fact that marijuana is probably softer.
Pot could replace booze in legality, and I would be happy.
So that's my position. Now, on to your post:
Quote:
in a recent NHTSA study, the only statistically significant outcome associated with marijuana was that drivers drove more slowly.drivers under the influence of marijuana tended to decrease their speed and approach other cars more cautiously.
These are the same reactions seen in many elderly drivers. Elderly drivers are not as dangerous on the road as speeding teenagers, but they aren't as safe as people who have normal reaction time. Marijuana *does* slow reaction time.
Quote:
“There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. However, in driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment - consistently less than produced by low moderate doses of alcohol and many legal medications. In contrast to alcohol, which tends to increase risky driving practices, marijuana tends to make subjects more cautious. Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society.”
(authors Lynn Zimmer, Ph.D. and John P. Morgan, M.D. research on marijuana and driving)
Heh. I found who these people are -- a Google search puts them all over sites dealing with the legalization of marijuana. Not exactly unbiased. I'd like to see who did the "driving studies" that showed no driving impairment. I find it hard to believe that the effects of marijuana somehow manage not to interfere with driving. The authors' attempts to acknowledge this are less than convincing.
Please note that I was saying that alcohol is a better comparison to marijuana than tobacco, not that it's a perfect comparison (See above regarding spectrum). Drunk drivers are more dangerous than high drivers; I agree with that and never said otherwise. However, high drivers cannot be as safe as sober drivers because of the slowed reaction times, changes in judgement, changes in "perception" as noted above, etc. Because of the slow-down (as opposed to increased aggressive behavior), high drivers may not cause as many fatal accidents as drunk drivers, but they still cause accidents. It really doesn't matter, in the end. Driving under either substances shouldn't be legal. Fortunately, that's not the debate.
Quote:
i think that there is no reason why marijuana shuold be illegal...
Much as I personally dislike it, I think there is a solid case for the legalization of marijuana. Most of it is economic (which I haven't touched on at all in this post...), and I wouldn't oppose a legalization movement in my state. But I wouldn't support it, either.
Edit: tweaked wording. This is probably my last post on this topic. Also, please don't take this personally, Burgessia. We've butted heads on two different subjects now, but I suspect we have more beliefs in common than it appears. And you've gotten me thinking on stuff I hadn't really thought out before, so thanks.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted October 15, 2003 11:45 PM |
|
|
It's euphoric addiction, yes..
like sex or in a lessor way gambeling, accept its a mental euphoria. So on 1 hand it is mental.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
chosen0ne
Hired Hero
Nightmare Beyond Comprehension
|
|
posted October 16, 2003 03:42 AM |
|
|
no because then everone would become a stonner.
____________
[url]http://www.romnation.net/battle/play.php?uid=2015[/url]
|
|
burgessia
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 16, 2003 10:24 PM |
|
|
oh man...i wrote a long reply on this topic and then it all went to hell.
it said "sorry,your name is not in db" or sth
____________
|
|
kaiser
Tavern Dweller
für das Vaterland
|
|
posted October 18, 2003 08:50 PM |
|
|
the german in me demands consistency, either legalise MJ or de-legalise (is that even a word?  ) alchohol, smokes. even though i drink and smoke i hate 'on the fence' laws.
____________
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
posted October 19, 2003 01:02 AM |
|
|
Can anyone guess what I voted?
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 19, 2003 01:03 AM |
|
|
Probably the way any real idiot stoner would vote...
____________
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
|
posted October 19, 2003 01:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Probably the way any real idiot stoner would vote...
Hey don't insult me in MY THREAD!
I think it should be legalized but it should have some exceptions. Like you shouldn't be able to drive, or operate heavy machinery(think how confusing that would be).
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 19, 2003 01:08 AM |
|
|
I didn't say YOU were an idiot stoner, I just said you voted like one. I wasn't trying to insult you.
____________
|
|
burgessia
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 19, 2003 01:20 AM |
|
|
|
stoners are not idiots. they just like to be stoned)
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted October 23, 2003 06:44 AM |
|
|
As for proof to that Burgessia.. I want to say to you all
That (if you know cicero think up now)
Law, is defined in an unsupreme way!
People who want to get rid of pot arent thinking clearly!
Anyone can have blood shot eyes (in most places), and tell a cop that hes high, and get away with it if theres no successful search.
if someone protests, or merely if polititians move to pass the "urinalis law" where cops can take tests with reasonable cause.
Catch everyone, but lower crime punishment.
10 hours community service a week for 40 hours. and test them again, and again (twice) within 6 months. Although the fine for failed tests, result in a fine to pay costs of testing, or 10 more hours CService
I'm sure theres alot of ppl who would vote on this, even most of you.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted October 23, 2003 06:47 AM |
|
|
AlthOUg sorry but none of you can tell me that its not possible to legalize pot.
Can you tell me that its impossible to do so? I can tell you it's possible to do. give it 10 years or so..
____________
What are you up to
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
