Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Shamfrit wrote:You only served to prove my point spartan, most drug users think it's okay or justify the reasons, most people who don't use drugs think it's a bad thing to do or that it affects them.

There is no middle ground in a discussion made of two polar sides. All that matters, is taking certain drugs has consequences, both in legal terms and life terms. If you take them, far ram you, you'd better be able to accept the consequences if and when they arrive.

It doesn't matter if it's beer, wine, weed, coke, spanking hoes or breaking into houses to nick car stereos; you have to be prepared to pay the price, whatever it may be.

So you used him for your point, that started with an abrupt spanking earlier in the thread... yes, I said a spanking, a seven word post spanking... oooh a spanking .

You sir, are... just wanted t say You sir.

I am not sure why you feel the way that you do, but your presentation trumps itself mate. All drugs are bad is one of the worst lines I ever hear, try to survive without any form of drug, then come back and put your experiences in a thread about AA, not pot.

MA is a massive joke overall, but in some ways it does serve a purpose... like making kids feel really really bad about themselves... and now you victimize and miscategorize the pot and the user all over again... If you did some of your own research without cherry picking data you would find that pot is not the danger zone that most present it as, but everyone is entitled to their own irate opinions... for instance I still believe the moon is made of cheese, goat cheese to be exact, and I plan on installing a cracker factory up there at some point.



The elves... they speak to me in my ear...



Wow... Mr. POTtato-head

I really don't want to get into a long and lengthy debate, I've got a whole year of discussing Carl Jung's research into the habitual lives of the 'Pot Smoker,' and allot of years ahead of me getting into the same debate over, and over, and over again.

All drugs are bad, all of them, disregarding legality, alter the way our natural systems work, they alter chemical receptors, change thought and immune system, inhibit and contain our ability to feel, process and heal. Of course, some drugs are required, medical uses for example. But even then alot of drugs that help medical conditions CAN, in small circumstances, be just as harmful as not taking them.

I've never taken 'illegal' narcotics, and never have I been compelled to do so. I don't wish to risk any form of criminal conviction or involvement with the police, mainly because joining the police is one of my key career aims, specifically detective/statistic and criminologist research. That doesn't mean I am simply a paper and pen pusher tossing statistics left and right, I know all too well the dangers of substance misuse (which does not specifically limit itself to legality) and I stand by my earlier comment.

I was not ready to accept the consequences of drinking, and of not being able to contain that addiction, and so the fallout was twice as hard and twice as dangerous, to all involved. I continue to drink responsibly and sparsely now having accepted the consequences, and will be prepared to do so in the future.

In our capitalist age, I think Caffiene, not alchohol, is the more disruptive. We're ever pushed further to working beyond our means, living beyond our means (another thread in itself) and to perform outside of our creative fields. It's not hard to see why, on the one hand, crime is dropping, but on the other, more and more people are turning to perceived solutions to the strains of our current age. We all need a release somehow, I respect people for being able to find one, I'm still searching, but justifying the use of a narcotic, be it caffiene, paracetamol or weed, has not, and never will be, in my book, the best solution to any problem.

It's no wonder drug use is on the rise, and whilst I think legalising ANY currently illegal drug is a very complicated mine field none of us are qualified to address, it is certainly a conversation that needs to take place.

Shamfrit wrote:I really don't want to get into a long and lengthy debate.

Then why did you post in a thread about weed. Then troll and get your ass handed to you?

I have 3 relatives, Paranoid Schizophrenic, all after smoking pot.

Their dependency on stronger drugs grew for the same high after they gained a resistance to weed, moved onto Heroin/Cocaine etc.

I have friends who do pot from time to time, they're still my friends, I just don't approve. I smoke Tobacco sometimes.

sA

If you believe I was trolling then we've got a problem already.

Shamfrit wrote:I really don't want to get into a long and lengthy debate, I've got a whole year of discussing Carl Jung's research into the habitual lives of the 'Pot Smoker,' and allot of years ahead of me getting into the same debate over, and over, and over again.

You should probably choose a different career path since you don't seem to enjoy the debate.

Shamfrit wrote:
All drugs are bad, all of them, disregarding legality, alter the way our natural systems work, they alter chemical receptors, change thought and immune system, inhibit and contain our ability to feel, process and heal. Of course, some drugs are required, medical uses for example. But even then alot of drugs that help medical conditions CAN, in small circumstances, be just as harmful as not taking them.

All drugs affect our system. That doesn't mean they're bad. Alteration does not equal harm without significant support.

Shamfrit wrote:
I've never taken 'illegal' narcotics, and never have I been compelled to do so. I don't wish to risk any form of criminal conviction or involvement with the police, mainly because joining the police is one of my key career aims, specifically detective/statistic and criminologist research. That doesn't mean I am simply a paper and pen pusher tossing statistics left and right,

Yes, it does. Sorry.

Shamfrit wrote:
I was not ready to accept the consequences of drinking, and of not being able to contain that addiction, and so the fallout was twice as hard and twice as dangerous, to all involved. I continue to drink responsibly and sparsely now having accepted the consequences, and will be prepared to do so in the future.

I thought all drugs were bad. God, you're such a bad person for drinking. Bad, bad, bad....

Shamfrit wrote:
In our capitalist age, I think Caffiene, not alchohol, is the more disruptive. We're ever pushed further to working beyond our means, living beyond our means (another thread in itself) and to perform outside of our creative fields.

Means? We have the means to consume caffeine. Why is that not considered a component of our capability? Don't respond with an argument from nature, that argument is worthless.

Shamfrit wrote:
It's not hard to see why, on the one hand, crime is dropping, but on the other, more and more people are turning to perceived solutions to the strains of our current age. We all need a release somehow, I respect people for being able to find one, I'm still searching, but justifying the use of a narcotic, be it caffiene, paracetamol or weed, has not, and never will be, in my book, the best solution to any problem.

Violence is good option, 'natural' too.

Shamfrit wrote:
It's no wonder drug use is on the rise, and whilst I think legalising ANY currently illegal drug is a very complicated mine field none of us are qualified to address, it is certainly a conversation that needs to take place.

False modesty, especially when projected, is dumb.

There is nothing to be gained from doing weed, or any illegal drugs for that matter. What does it do besides feth with your system? Sure, it might give you pleasure for a while, but then you need more to keep it up and that's more money wasted. You could say that alchohol is worse, but alchohol is sold over the counter and is far easier to regulate because you can keep track of who purchased it. Weed, being illegal, is generally only purchased from people who grow it in secret, and you'd have no idea what that money is getting spent on.

I haven't met a pleasant person who does drugs. I've met a lot of stoners, both teenagers and adults, and they're not very nice people to be around, not because they're rude or anything, but they always reek of pot and look terrible. I don't think marijuana should ever be legalised anywhere, because study proves that it does have negative effects on your body and it's responsible for generating a lot of 'dirty money'.

It seems that both sides of the debate are a bit off the mark. Most people against pot are people who've had bad experiences (mental diseases), people who've seen the negative effects on high levels, and people who learn what they know about it from study and observations. Most of the people for pot are stoners or people who haven't suffered the negative effects.

Now, whether you've had negative effects or not should have no bearing on the argument. Science proves that it's harmful, and it's harder to regulate at the moment than alchohol anyway.

Besides, if you're doing pot, and not as a teen 'experimenting', to relax for example, then there's something wrong with you, as there are much less harmful and more beneficial ways to relax or relieve pain. You've got to ask yourself; is it worth risking my physical and mental health for a brief pleasure?

How would it generate a lot of "dirty money" if legalized?

Because people are still going to be growing the stuff, they just won't be getting in trouble for it.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I haven't met a pleasant person who does drugs.

Could you define what you mean by "doing drugs"? It seems to me that most people, when they think of a drug user, imagine someone that uses drugs regularly and frequently. Undoubtedly this is true for a lot of people. I personally have smoked weed on only a few occasions, and though I have no qualms about smoking it in future, I have no desire to go out and get some RIGHT NOW. I prefer to get it when we have a party planned, or just if there's some being passed around. Do I count as a drug user?

Come to think of it, do I count as a pleasant person?

I suppose I should clarify I bit; I meant someone who does drugs on a regular basis, a stoner, not someone who does it once-off at a party (although that could lead to worse things).

Well I can agree with you there; in my experience, regular use doesn't tend to encourage positive characteristics in people. Once again (and it's worth restating), it depends on the user.

You know, I find it really hard to communicate with users, not because they're stoned, but because I don't know what to think of them. They might not necessarily be bad people, and my Christian beliefs preach tolerance, blah blah blah, but the arrogant side in me wakes up and looks down on them as lowlifes. I've got friends who do pot once in a blue moon at wild parties, but they're still good people. We've all done something bad in our formative years, whether it be getting drunk, getting stoned, or watching porn (guilty on all three charges ), but it's when I see adults who are obviously users that I get really pissed.

Does it make me a bad person that I don't consider those things bad (in moderation)?

I know several people, adults and younger, who use weed, and I don't consider any of them bad people. Apart from the ones I'd consider bad people regardless. Maybe it's a matter of perspective: fairly strict christian vs whatever you'd describe me as.

My opinion is that use of drugs doesn't make a person "bad", but bad people will tend to use (and abuse) them.

Oh no, I'm not that strict, as becoming Christian was a choice, not something I was raised with. My family is atheist.

Meaning that I'm quite flexible when it comes to beliefs.

Well when I was a stoner I got stoned on most weekends. Washed my clothes and made sure I didnt smell before going home, this was so I wasnt caught but I didnt realy want to smell of weed.

What you described Cheese I think of as a "Druggie" There people who do weed all the day and do other drugs.

smiling Assassin wrote:I have 3 relatives, Paranoid Schizophrenic, all after smoking pot.

I had several friends all like this, too.

In all cases, their schizophrenia was latent, only brought to the fore by their toking. It wasn't caused by it (it ran in their families - the schizophrenia, not the toking).
Three of them had full-on psychotic breaks - two even killed themselves. Do I blame the drugs? No.
These people were like this before the drugs - it was bound to become active at some time anyway - stress, work, whatever. The trigger events are many and varied. Also given their personality types, they would've used ANY other drug to get high, from Qaaludes to whiffits, if they couldn't get dope.

I've used. It puts me to sleep. Boring.
I prefer alcomahol. It's NOT a drug. Yes, it's an intoxicant, but it is technically a metabolic poison.

Cheese Elemental wrote:There is nothing to be gained from doing weed, or any illegal drugs for that matter.

And yet people continue to use them. Clearly they are getting something out of the act.

Cheese Elemental wrote:
What does it do besides feth with your system?

I needs to do something else?

Cheese Elemental wrote:
Sure, it might give you pleasure for a while, but then you need more to keep it up and that's more money wasted.

As opposed to all that money that you might put towards a new computer, or television. Clearly those are more worthy cash sinks.

Cheese Elemental wrote:
You could say that alchohol is worse, but alchohol is sold over the counter and is far easier to regulate because you can keep track of who purchased it. Weed, being illegal, is generally only purchased from people who grow it in secret, and you'd have no idea what that money is getting spent on.

Do you know what the money you spent of your computer is being spent on?

Cheese Elemental wrote:
I haven't met a pleasant person who does drugs. I've met a lot of stoners, both teenagers and adults, and they're not very nice people to be around, not because they're rude or anything, but they always reek of pot and look terrible. I don't think marijuana should ever be legalised anywhere, because study proves that it does have negative effects on your body and it's responsible for generating a lot of 'dirty money'.

The money won't be 'dirty' if its legal. That said, there are plenty of legal substances which have lots of negative side affects; so that's hardly a damning point.

Cheese Elemental wrote:
It seems that both sides of the debate are a bit off the mark. Most people against pot are people who've had bad experiences (mental diseases), people who've seen the negative effects on high levels, and people who learn what they know about it from study and observations. Most of the people for pot are stoners or people who haven't suffered the negative effects.

That's far too simplistic to be considered a useful analysis.

Cheese Elemental wrote:
Now, whether you've had negative effects or not should have no bearing on the argument. Science proves that it's harmful, and it's harder to regulate at the moment than alchohol anyway.

And?

Cheese Elemental wrote:
Besides, if you're doing pot, and not as a teen 'experimenting', to relax for example, then there's something wrong with you, as there are much less harmful and more beneficial ways to relax or relieve pain. You've got to ask yourself; is it worth risking my physical and mental health for a brief pleasure?

It seems like you've spent far too much time swimming in misinformation to form anything approaching a well reasoned opinion.

Drug is a propaganda based term that is totally reliant on contextual relevance.

If I decide that shoes are a drug, I would be entirely wrong, but I could provide a rational argument that would prove I am right in a specific set of guidelines.

When you begin to speak about narcotics specifically, then you are starting to make sense, but you will still end up basing most of your opinions on other opinions. All chemicals are in some way a drug (obviously) but most are not narcotics, which is itself still quite a loose term.

As you begin to take into account information that does not link directly into your pre-conceptions, you can get a clearer view of the entire spectrum. So if I have shoes, and these shoes are no more important than any other shoes, I can create a pre-conception due to the fact that I did not define what constitutes importance. In this conversation "importance" would mean "level of bad" for some, whereas I know that no shoe is the ultimate shoe, and I am better off being happy in the shoes that God... erm, the shoe store sold me, and happy in the shoes that I have purchased.

I have little information confirming that users of marijuana are generically lazy and generally worthless (however you define this term). Most of what I see and find only serves to confirm the fact that most fear is based on a biase we choose to incorporate into our lives. Just as a "druggie" (funny term... like a... wait, no not like anything really ) "chooses" (in some ways we make "predetermined" choices due to our situations) to use "drugs", people that look down from such great heights do so in much the same way. This part of the debate is rather pedantic IMHO, and most definitely personal; this is the same way with people and any life choice really. You are who you are, and any choices you make directly present an alternate perspective for you to make decisions, like water and the waves and stuff... mmmmm, marshmallows.

Eat, drink, and do what you like, maintain a reflection of your piece in the pie, your little blueberry that most people choose to ignore for themselves.

I've never tried weed, but I've got no problem with it. I've never met a stoner that was half the problem a drunk is.

Wrexasaur wrote:If I decide that shoes are a drug, I would be entirely wrong, but I could provide a rational argument that would prove I am right in a specific set of guidelines.

When you begin to speak about narcotics specifically, then you are starting to make sense, but you will still end up basing most of your opinions on other opinions. All chemicals are in some way a drug (obviously) but most are not narcotics, which is itself still quite a loose term.

As you begin to take into account information that does not link directly into your pre-conceptions, you can get a clearer view of the entire spectrum. So if I have shoes, and these shoes are no more important than any other shoes, I can create a pre-conception due to the fact that I did not define what constitutes importance. In this conversation "importance" would mean "level of bad" for some, whereas I know that no shoe is the ultimate shoe, and I am better off being happy in the shoes that God... erm, the shoe store sold me, and happy in the shoes that I have purchased.

I think Wrex is on drugs right now. And he's trying to smoke his shoes.

My god... it is coming... we will not see it coming... that made no sense... yeah I know... BEER BOOT!






Something is wrong here... what was in that boot?

Someone beat me to it... my genius idea has been stolen from my brain!!!



That is a stoner shoe... yep, no doubt about that one. Oh, so you are actually a doctor? Oh, with 5 decades of experience? Oh... okay.

Beer boots? Those sound much less likely to fill your house with noxious fumes!

I don't know, the scent of beer and sweat is pretty noxious.

That's because you're not MAN enough to handle it.

Nice... he even talks about the... anyway, please enjoy dem riddim... not a fan of cowboy music, but a beer never hurt. Sound like a good line for a song .



Alcohol makes you super smart and super reactive, now with 2000 on the end to make it that much more stupidendous... yes I said it.



Yep... yep... yep... arooni 5000, because 2000 just sounds wimpy by comparison.

Orkeosaurus wrote:That's because you're not MAN enough to handle it.

Spoken like someone who's never had to shoot the boot.

dogma wrote:shoot the boot.

Weed is awesome.

It's been used as early as 7,000 B.C. Hemp creates a multitude of products other than the euphoric drug it is infamously known for today.

The hemp plant was first regulated and then outright banned in America thanks to racists and cotton lobbyists back in the early 1900s.

If weed was legalized, it would open a massive market, filled to the brim with new jobs for the American people.

Seriously, think of all the jobs it would create.

The farmers and hired hands.

Massive refineries.

Dispensaries for the drug.

Clothing stores would carry hemp products.

These would be all over the nation. And it would make a huge boost to other existing markets as well for example; 7/11 and White Castle would explode with business.

Hemp used as the euphoric drug would be taxed at said dispensaries as well as a special state-issued license to carry and distribute the drug would be necessary (Make it illegal to own more than 1 pot plant per household.) With dispensaries out and about, this reduces crime as drug lords get their money supply essentially cut off. The only problem I foresee is the first few years dispensaries get knocked off or become targets of criminals in some of the worse-off neighborhoods. The tax money provided by these dispensaries would allow the state to hire more police officers to protect the streets.


The states and banks make money, new jobs and a new market are created, people can once again sleep easy at night knowing they aren't going to get shot, so everybody wins.

If weed was legalized, it would open a massive market, filled to the brim with new jobs for the American people.
****No there wouldn’t be. Even you’re right, we don’t make anything anymore anyway. Same Southeast Asian wage slaves would make it.
Seriously, think of all the jobs it would create.
***Like, none?
The farmers and hired hands.
***Already grown
Massive refineries.
***Were you high when you typed that?
Dispensaries for the drug.
***Walmart
Clothing stores would carry hemp products.
***Nope. Synthetics are way cheaper.
These would be all over the nation. And it would make a huge boost to other existing markets as well for example; 7/11 and White Castle would explode with business.
***Meh.
Hemp used as the euphoric drug would be taxed at said dispensaries as well as a special state-issued license to carry and distribute the drug would be necessary (Make it illegal to own more than 1 pot plant per household.) With dispensaries out and about, this reduces crime as drug lords get their money supply essentially cut off. The only problem I foresee is the first few years dispensaries get knocked off or become targets of criminals in some of the worse-off neighborhoods. The tax money provided by these dispensaries would allow the state to hire more police officers to protect the streets.
***I’m down with this.