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.

Right, last time Shuma, read this really slowly.

Marijuana is not physically addictive.

Greebynog wrote:Right, last time Shuma, read this really slowly.

Marijuana is not physically addictive.

Do you have a source saying it isn't addictive?

Pot heads are rarely productive members of society.

Do you have any evidence to back that up? Or is it just anecdotal crap?

I've been around the block, worked in the kitchen for 7+ years, I'm currently a Graphic Designer and Print technologies manager.

I've been/known and been surrounded by 'pot heads' my entire adult life. 99% of them are hard working, good citizens who do their job, then go home and relax in their preffered way. A large percentage of the U.S. population recreationally or medicenally uses Mary Jane, it's been that way for years, and isn't about to change.

I find your comment to be ignorant, lacking solid analysis, and boderline pejorative.

I guess they should ban wargaming. Do we not all continually waste money and time on something that is ultimately useless?


^^^You just lambasted him for using anecdotal evidence then turned around and used the same argument.

@avantgarde: Word, when I start on an army building project I practically get twitches if i'm not working on some aspect of it.

Grignard: http://www.procon.org/viewbackgroundresource.asp?resourceID=1492

There's one for starters.

I'll have a look for more.

Edited to address Grignard.

You should try listening to "Love Line" when a caller that smokes weed on a regular basis calls in....the doctor spots it right away...within the first 10 seconds. You know why...cuz weed causes permanent mental damage....slows down your thinking and speach permanently....almost to a crawl. Not just while your on it....but permanently. The doctor can spot this cuz its just so obvious...ive gotten to the point where i can as well just from listening to the show for so long. It was the weed smokers weeks to get out a sentence or a thought. People that say theres no eveidence that there is anything harmful about weed are in denial and just stupid.

edit: and LOL at the people saying POT isnt addictive....just wow...man denial is a hard thing to get past.

LOL OMG are you citing 'Love Line' as scientific proof that weed damages your brain?

LOL
LOL
LOL

Greebynog wrote:Grignard: http://www.procon.org/viewbackgroundresource.asp?resourceID=1492

There's one for starters.

I'll have a look for more.

Edited to address Grignard.

Doesn't that negate you're argument that marijuana is not addictive? It may be the least, but least addictive still equals addictive to some extent.

brad3104 wrote:You should try listening to "Love Line" when a caller that smokes weed on a regular basis calls in....the doctor spots it right away...within the first 10 seconds. You know why...cuz weed causes permanent mental damage....slows down your thinking and speach permanently....almost to a crawl. Not just while your on it....but permanently. The doctor can spot this cuz its just so obvious...ive gotten to the point where i can as well just from listening to the show for so long. It was the weed smokers weeks to get out a sentence or a thought. People that say theres no eveidence that there is anything harmful about weed are in denial and just stupid.

Again, stereotypes. You show me one person who conforms to it, I'll show you one who doesn't. You really aren't even making a serious attempt at rational discussion here are you?

barlio wrote:

Greebynog wrote:Grignard: http://www.procon.org/viewbackgroundresource.asp?resourceID=1492

There's one for starters.

I'll have a look for more.

Edited to address Grignard.

Doesn't that negate you're argument that marijuana is not addictive? It may be the least, but least addictive still equals addictive to some extent.

A fair point.

As I said, I'll find more sources, that was the first one I stumbled upon. I clumsily said 'not addictive' earlier, when I should have used the more correct 'not physically addictive', which I switched to later after realising my mistake. Anything can be psychologically addictive; sex, food, blankets. Should we ban them?

SsevenN wrote:LOL OMG are you citing 'Love Line' as scientific proof that weed damages your brain?

LOL
LOL
LOL

Umm who said anything about scientific proof? i dont need to prove anything...because im not an idiot...and i dont smoke weed...i have nothing to prove to anyone. Its the people that are addicted to weed...that constantly need to prove and lie about how weed is just like water with munchie dust in it....get over yourself. last time i checked...the docotr on the show is real...and more well known/respected in his field...than any doctor you could mention.

edit: @greeby im not going to waist more than 2 minutes of my time trying to prove anything to you. Keep smoking weed...stay in denail...lol have a nice life. The facts are out there....you and the rest of the weed smokers just cant accept them.

Grignard wrote:

Mango wrote:The duty of government is to provide a loose frame work of laws that allow a society to function provide for basic services, such as a mechanism to enforce those laws(police), emrgency services (fire and rescue), protection from outright aggression (the military for international matters, police for domestic). The government should allow for the maximum freedom possible while maintaining an orderly functioning society. (ideally). The government should not be responsible for protecting people from their own stupidity.

Alcohol is legal. The majority of the population uses it responsibly. Same with firearms. There will always be idiots. The government should be concerned with protecting the responsible people from the idiots, not protecting the idiots from themselves. If someone drives while intoxicated, and becomes a threat ot others, lock them up. If someone shoots someone, lock them up or execute them.

That is a libertarian interpretation of the duty of government. Actually, not truly that, as a pure economically liberal point of view would be to privatize emergency and protective services.

You can also view society as a sort of collective organism, where you could draw an analogy of individuals making up collective organism of the state, much like cells make up your body. Therefore the government would want to ensure the health and morality of the "organism" by insuring that all the units of society work toward a common goal.

The main difference between a "collective organism" and a society, is that a bunch of cells are incapable of sentient thought. A society is made up of members who are. A societies common goal is preservation and perpetuation of the society. A loose framework provides better flexibility than a rigid overly regulated society. A government that "ensures" the health, morality, and goals of a society is a dictatorship. By "ensuring" ie making sure of a persons health or morality or goals, you are making decisions for a person and not letting them make decisions for themselves. A person learns lifes lessons better if they must suffer the consequences of thier decisions. Make a bad health decision? Deal with your poor health yourself.

You made an assumption. I did not say that I am a pure economic libertarian. For example, if police and protective concerns are handled by private security forces, then the state no longer has a monopoly on legitimate use of force within that society, and the society will fragment.

Better evidence: http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Argument:_Marijuana_is_not_addictive

Brad, your mind is clearly already made up, and you have nothing to add to an intelligent discussion. How ironic, the 'idiot' pot smoker being more articulate than clean and sober you.

Ever had a beer Brad?

brad3104 wrote:

SsevenN wrote:LOL OMG are you citing 'Love Line' as scientific proof that weed damages your brain?

LOL
LOL
LOL

Umm who said anything about scientific proof? i dont need to prove anything...because im not an idiot...and i dont smoke weed...i have nothing to prove to anyone. Its the people that are addicted to weed...that constantly need to prove and lie about how weed is just like water with munchie dust in it....get over yourself. last time i checked...the docotr on the show is real...and more well known/respected in his field...than any doctor you could mention.

You are commiting a logical fallacy.

You say that weed is bad, and you don't need to show HOW you know weed is bad, because you know it is. Seems pretty idiotic to me.

Now if you had any kind of study, or fact set that showed detremental effects of habitual Mary Jane use, through a controlled test enviorment I would be more inclined to listen to your opinions. If you had any kind of data to support your assertations you might come off a little less pejorative.

But forming an opinion with nothing but anecdotal evidence from listening to a bunch of tripe like 'love line' doesn't build a foundation for anything, except for formulating ignorant opinions.

Greebynog wrote:Better evidence: http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Argument:_Marijuana_is_not_addictive

Brad, your mind is clearly already made up, and you have nothing to add to an intelligent discussion. How ironic, the 'idiot' pot smoker being more articulate than clean and sober you.

Ever had a beer Brad?

Using wiki as a source reference is hardly being more articulate and intelligent.

As this topic is starting to generate complaints I am going to lock it.

This thread is reopened as several users have requested it.

Everyone please remember to be polite no matter how your passions may boil.

OK, to those who think it's harmless...

You're idiots. My dad did it from the ages of 14-40 (i.e. until he found out he had lung and brain damage), and it was too late then. For those who say it's not addictive, you're really, really stupid. He did it at 14 to try and escape from his terrible upbringing, and even though he moved out of home at 16, he couldn't stop. Without it, he fell into depression and lethargy. He was arrested a lot for violent behaviour and being drunk/disorderly in public.

It affected his behaviour, turning him extremely violent. He was jailed for a total of 10 years for various assaults with his fists and sharp objects. He spent all his money on it and stole to get more.

In the end, after doing it one final time, he went berserk and tried to kill my family (including me, despite how much he loved me). He fled when he was injured leaving my mother and brother with minor injuries, but came back. This time, the police were waiting, but he fought like mad. One of them was forced to use a nearby carving knife to try and disable him, and in the end, accidentally slashed his neck open.

It is addictive and it does affect your behaviour. If he'd never done it, I would have had a normal life. I wouldn't have to be ashamed when I tell people about my dad and what he did. I could have been proud of him.

Thank you, and goodnight. Learn from this.

Was this before or after you shot a burglar and were shot in the chest ?

Most of my circle of friends have been smoking on or off for 20 years+ and none of us have ever murdered anyone or become psychotic. And you're seriously claiming that weed makes the majority of people violent are you, because I would suggest that most people's here experience of those who toke is them sitting quite still, giggling and,like, suddenly realising that,like, we, man, are, like all connected y'know...

ShumaGorath wrote:

Pot heads are rarely productive members of society.

I used to work turn-arounds twice a week as well as attend class full time. I smoke weed because it helps me focus as I often draw or paint in five to eight hour stretches. I'm currently taking a double major at SCAD Atlanta. The problem with using stereotypes as an argument is that stereotypes are usually inaccurate.

As for the argument of weed being 20 times stronger today (or whatever the percentage being claimed is), how was this number reached? I remember hearing a while back about a study which made such a claim which arrived at their conclusion by asking dispensaries in Amsterdam what was most popular and tracking the potency over time. My comment is this: how does that indicate whether the weed itself was getting stronger and not simply reflect a change in customer preferences? Can anyone link a study?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Pot heads are rarely productive members of society.

How many Grateful Dead albums are there ?

reds8n wrote:Was this before or after you shot a burglar and were shot in the chest ?

Most of my circle of friends have been smoking on or off for 20 years+ and none of us have ever murdered anyone or become psychotic. And you're seriously claiming that weed makes the majority of people violent are you, because I would suggest that most people's here experience of those who toke is them sitting quite still, giggling and,like, suddenly realising that,like, we, man, are, like all connected y'know...

Look you dill weed, my dad DIED because of weed. Do you think that's funny? Do you think I'd joke about my own father DYING because of something that the fuckwits of the world think is harmless? Drugs are nothing to laugh about; they kill you, and the laws have to be enforced tighter. Doing drugs should be just as punishable an offence as assault or robbery.

You realise that because of that filthy plant, I've grown up without a father figure? You know what I say? Shoot anyone who growns it. Yes, you heard me, if they're so damn eager to die, why don't we help them?

Why has this thread turned into the effects of canabis. IMO that's got nothing to do with whether it should be legalised. You know you can die by drinking too much toilet duck doesn't mean it needs to be banned.

If you must though: the physical effects of weed are not proven enough either way so theirs not much point arguing about it. The mental effects though are very clear, you get lazy, you don't do anything productive and theres always better things to be doing with your time. I spent most of my time in my final year of uni on it and I became the most lazy unmotivated fether on the planet, I can say that of a lot of other people I know as well. I don't bother with it now and feel a lot better for it.

But whatever it is it doesn't need banning. The worst harm weed can do is when its filling criminals pockets.

We are sorry that your father died young and you are left in difficult circumstances.

No-one intends any disrespect to your father's memory.

However, that does not give you the moral authority to try and stifle debate and insult other forum members.

Please try to moderate your language when posting in DakkaDakka.

The most harm it can do is fill pockets? What don't you get? If my dad never did that, he'd still be alive. I would have grown up with a normal family and we wouldn't have had to suffer for my father's stupidity in smoking the stuff in the first place. I've actually seen what it can do to people over time. It's terrifying.

Cheese Elemental wrote:The most harm it can do is fill pockets? What don't you get? If my dad never did that, he'd still be alive. I would have grown up with a normal family and we wouldn't have had to suffer for my father's stupidity in smoking the stuff in the first place. I've actually seen what it can do to people over time. It's terrifying.

To be honest I've never heard an example like yours cited to canabis intake. But I've heard a hell of a lot worse from alcohol abusers. (not to say that what you went through wasn't very difficult which i'm sure it was)

Cheese Elemental wrote:
Look you dill weed, my dad DIED because of weed. Do you think that's funny? Do you think I'd joke about my own father DYING because of something that the fuckwits of the world think is harmless? Drugs are nothing to laugh about; they kill you, and the laws have to be enforced tighter. Doing drugs should be just as punishable an offence as assault or robbery.

You realise that because of that filthy plant, I've grown up without a father figure? You know what I say? Shoot anyone who growns it. Yes, you heard me, if they're so damn eager to die, why don't we help them?

I neither believe you or particularly care to be blunt. Your dad had mental issues from a problematic childhood ( apparently) and had problems with substance abuse, this is no way indicative of the vast majority of people's experience with the substance in question. Your continued attempts to present yourself as the FONT OF ALL EXPERIENCE off of this, apparent, tragedy doesn't give your arguments any weight, not least as the vasat % of people who dabble or smoke do not go out and kill their families which pretty much negates your anecdote.

You also have no proof that the life of your father would have turned out differently if he hadn't smoked weed/or done anything differently instead.

People die from peanut allergies, are you saying we should ban nuts too ?

I think it is down to personal opinion.Maybe it might help for medical use,if in an controlled environment it might help help people suffering with cancer and such with pain relief.I do belive that we won't know though until a country accually does it and we see how a pot legal society runs.

reds8n wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:
Look you dill weed, my dad DIED because of weed. Do you think that's funny? Do you think I'd joke about my own father DYING because of something that the fuckwits of the world think is harmless? Drugs are nothing to laugh about; they kill you, and the laws have to be enforced tighter. Doing drugs should be just as punishable an offence as assault or robbery.

You realise that because of that filthy plant, I've grown up without a father figure? You know what I say? Shoot anyone who growns it. Yes, you heard me, if they're so damn eager to die, why don't we help them?

I neither believe you or particularly care to be blunt. Your dad had mental issues from a problematic childhood ( apparently) and had problems with substance abuse, this is no way indicative of the vast majority of people's experience with the substance in question. Your continued attempts to present yourself as the FONT OF ALL EXPERIENCE off of this, apparent, tragedy doesn't give your arguments any weight, not least as the vasat % of people who dabble or smoke do not go out and kill their families which pretty much negates your anecdote.

You also have no proof that the life of your father would have turned out differently if he hadn't smoked weed/or done anything differently instead.

People die from peanut allergies, are you saying we should ban nuts too ?

Can you ACTUALLY THINK of a reason WHY I WOULD LIE about him dying?

He didn't have mental problems because of his childhood, it was because of marijuana.

He had problems with substance abuse because using it IS SUBSTANCE ABUSE. It's killing yourself. I do NOT present myself as the font of all experience, I'm pointing out what I know and how I know it's right. I am NOT trying to get pity here. I'm warning you that if it's legalised, the death rate from drugs will soar and the life expectancy will drop. There is nothing good about it whatsoever.