Legalise marijuana

[heathen]

The comparison with alcohol isn't really valid. Alcohol is actually beneficial if you don't get drunk but use it as another food. Pot harms both your brain and your lungs, but I guess that's what natural selection is all about.

 

These are both incorrect and ignorant statements, although I guess that's to be expected coming from you.

[Pidesco]

The comparison with alcohol isn't really valid. Alcohol is actually beneficial if you don't get drunk but use it as another food. Pot harms both your brain and your lungs, but I guess that's what natural selection is all about.

 

 

Yeah, vodka is totally beneficial.

[WorstUsernameEver]

The comparison with alcohol isn't really valid. Alcohol is actually beneficial if you don't get drunk but use it as another food. Pot harms both your brain and your lungs, but I guess that's what natural selection is all about.

 

 

Yeah, vodka is totally beneficial.

 

Well, just look at what Thorton managed to do with a Vodka with Grigori.

Looked beneficial to me, and you can't do that with weed.

[Syraxis]

Some alcoholic beverages are proven to be beneficial, as is weed w/ its medicinal purposes. It's all about how they're used, frequency/intake amount and the like.

[Pope]

Yes.

 

 

Heck, I see no reason why authorites should ban anything responsible adults wish to do within the confinements of their private quarters. I'm not a big fan of the hedonistic hard drugs, but if one has a desire to experiment with those things without bothering anyone else, what the hell is wrong with that? Of course there will always be abuse, but that's the case with just about anything, from speed driving to porn addiction, and much much more. And making something illegal certainly doesn't change that fact.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Pope

[Gromnir]

if stranded on a desert island and an adequate fresh water water supply were available, Gromnir would want booze and broad-spectrum antibiotics... and we don't even drink alcohol. distilled spirits is less likely to perish and is more loaded with carbs than virtual any other alternative. die from infection is probable near as likely as starvation in a primitive and hostile environment, therefore we would be wanting those antibiotics. 'course am doubting we would has the luxury o' being able to plan for being marooned. we also uses various alcoholic beverages as ingredients when cooking. as such, we always has bottles o' pinot noir, pinot grigio, and sherry on hand. however, other than for cooking and our How-To-Survive-On-A-Deserted Island-Plan, booze has almost 0 influence on our daily life.

 

nevertheless, 'cause wasteoid krez missed the point, using alcohol/alcoholism as the benchmark for healthy living alternatives is foolish and... stoopid. we can easily name dozens o' activities that ain't near as self-destructive as habitual alcohol consumption, but to suggest that all o' those activities is benign would be ludicrous. alcohol is legal IN SPITE of the human cost. duh. whatever arguments krez and others may find for legalizing mj use, compare to alcohol is ironic obvious and dumb.

 

in any event, we again encourage widespread weed usage as it cannot help but benefit non-users such as Gromnir.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[heathen]

^^ Most of the most brilliant minds in history have also been users/abusers of drugs. There'd be no art without drugs, no psychology, no religion. As much as you seem to look down on people who like to space out now and then, you owe your whole culture to them.

[Gromnir]

^^ Most of the most brilliant minds in history have also been users/abusers of drugs. There'd be no art without drugs, no psychology, no religion. As much as you seem to look down on people who like to space out now and then, you owe your whole culture to them.

 

your reasoning is suspect.

 

 

1) am suspecting that you would need to define "users/abusers of drugs" before we could take your notion serious.

 

if every shlub who ever had a glass o' wine with his pot roast gets counted as a drug user in your book, then yeah, we suspect that you could say that "most" brilliant peoples has been drug users.

 

2) prove "most".

 

using an acceptable definition o' drug use, you is gonna have a hard time proving that Most brilliant persons has been drug users.

 

3) prove that the drug use were a causal link between the brilliant persons and their brilliant discoveries.

 

is just as likely that these brilliant folks you allude to made their discoveries in spite of their drug use, rather than because of it.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Monte Carlo]

The taxation on weed will be so punitive that criminals will still smuggle it, the same way they do with tobacco.

 

Not that I'm saying that it's a reason to keep it illegal, it just adds another POV to the prohibition argument.

[heathen]

^^ Most of the most brilliant minds in history have also been users/abusers of drugs. There'd be no art without drugs, no psychology, no religion. As much as you seem to look down on people who like to space out now and then, you owe your whole culture to them.

 

your reasoning is suspect.

 

 

1) am suspecting that you would need to define "users/abusers of drugs" before we could take your notion serious.

 

if every shlub who ever had a glass o' wine with his pot roast gets counted as a drug user in your book, then yeah, we suspect that you could say that "most" brilliant peoples has been drug users.

 

User means uses drugs, abuser means abuses drugs. You're free to check a dictionary. Poets and musicians have been notorious drug abusers, from Baudelaire to the beatniks to any contemporary rock musician. Jung, Freud and Einstein + multiple other scientists used cocaine and later acid. Weed has been smoked in India for centuries or even millennia. And i'm not talking about "a glass of wine" here. Most other drugs don't work that way.

 

2) prove "most".

 

using an acceptable definition o' drug use, you is gonna have a hard time proving that Most brilliant persons has been drug users.

 

Most people in the world use some sort of drugs, so it's safe to say most artists do as well. Tobacco, khat, coffeine... They're all drugs. Seems like it's in human nature to do so. I can give you a long list of brilliant people in history, from shamans to witch doctors to modern physicians who've been users or abusers. That doesnt mean everyone has been, but recreational drugs have in huge part shaped every culture in the world.

 

3) prove that the drug use were a causal link between the brilliant persons and their brilliant discoveries.

 

is just as likely that these brilliant folks you allude to made their discoveries in spite of their drug use, rather than because of it.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I didn't claim there was a causal link between drugs and being brilliant, I claimed that many pot smokers are, have been and will make you look bad in comparison

[Gromnir]

first, list some folks who used drugs not come anywhere close to an offer of proof regarding Most.

 

second, you stated that "There'd be no art without drugs, no psychology, no religion." clearly you claimed a causal link. however, if you is willing to back off from that pov, we is gracious enough to pretend you never made such a statement.

 

no link 'tween brilliance and drugs. no proof of most. so, what were your point?

 

also, please prove einstein drug use. we has heard some infrequent references to Possible opiod use late in life, but nothing quote worthy.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

It's a pretty big jump to say drugs = brilliance. I don't remember any quotes by prominent scientists that sounded like "I was totally stumped on this complex problem, but then I got totally wasted, and I solved it!"

[Wrath of Dagon]

Except in particle physics.

[Meshugger]

It's a pretty big jump to say drugs = brilliance. I don't remember any quotes by prominent scientists that sounded like "I was totally stumped on this complex problem, but then I got totally wasted, and I solved it!"

 

I've done it with alcohol in computer science. Everything worked correctly, but when i tried to analyze my source code, couldn't understand one bit of it.

[Meshugger]

I wouldn't say that drugs = brilliance, but i would rather turn it around and say: "Prove me that mind-altering drugs hinders creative thinking".

[Enoch]

I wouldn't say that drugs = brilliance, but i would rather turn it around and say: "Prove me that mind-altering drugs hinders creative thinking".

Because refusing to back up an assertion and instead demanding that the questioner prove a negative is such a totally legitimate debating tactic!

 

 

And casting "creative thinking" as a universally positive end is rather dubious, too. Chemically tweak your brain's pattern-recognition levels too high, and you end up spotting patterns where none exist. That's how you end up with maddening paranoia. Or free jazz.

 

[

]

[Pope]

Chemically tweak your brain's pattern-recognition levels too high, and you end up spotting patterns where none exist.

Or, you discover hidden truths which your brain wouldn't allow you to see before. Just because getting caught up in wacky stuff is maladaptive doesn't always mean it's not there.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Pope

[heathen]

first, list some folks who used drugs not come anywhere close to an offer of proof regarding Most.

 

edit: misread. My list while incomplete shows that some of the most influential people in our culture used drugs. Many of them wrote or created art directly about drugs. Everyone influenced by these people were indirectly influenced by drugs.

 

second, you stated that "There'd be no art without drugs, no psychology, no religion." clearly you claimed a causal link. however, if you is willing to back off from that pov, we is gracious enough to pretend you never made such a statement.

 

Most early shamanistic religions revolved around different hallucinogenic plants that were used in holy ceremonies. The vast majority of the ingenious tribes I've read about use substances that provide altered states of mind. Given the prevalence of drug use in ancient cultures everywhere and that they're still used today to draw inspiration from and induce experiences that differ from our regular state of mind I'd say it's not that implausible to say that drugs have played a huge part in developing our culture.

 

Both Jung & Freud were frequent users of cocaine, morphine and other drugs, and they're the fathers of modern psychology.

 

no link 'tween brilliance and drugs. no proof of most. so, what were your point?

 

The point I was trying to make was that drugs don't create brilliance, but they don't hinder it either. A brilliant mind can use drugs to draw inspiration from, which brilliant minds throughout history have done. This was to counter you saying pot smokers make you look good in comparison, which is pretty stupid and arrogant since your previous 3 president were all potheads in their youth Now if you said you still look good in comparison to your last 3 prez's I'd agree, but I guess you wouldn't since you seem to think that the ultimate scale on which to judge people is what other people think of them.

 

also, please prove einstein drug use. we has heard some infrequent references to Possible opiod use late in life, but nothing quote worthy.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Prove, prove how? I'm only relying on those same references. I think it's plausible considering the rampart drug experimenting going on in the scientific community back then.

Edited July 8, 2010 by heathen

[Meshugger]

I wouldn't say that drugs = brilliance, but i would rather turn it around and say: "Prove me that mind-altering drugs hinders creative thinking".

Because refusing to back up an assertion and instead demanding that the questioner prove a negative is such a totally legitimate debating tactic!

 

Because the original assertion has no tangible data to work on. "More brilliance", how do you measure that? But i would bet that there are some drugs that contains inhibitors for sending and recieving electrical inpulses to wherever our center for abstract thinking is in our brain

 

And casting "creative thinking" as a universally positive end is rather dubious, too. Chemically tweak your brain's pattern-recognition levels too high, and you end up spotting patterns where none exist. That's how you end up with maddening paranoia. Or free jazz.

 

Just like alcohol seems to work with some people, and not so well with others. Metallica's 4 first records were recorded while the whole band was drunk as hell + two of them high on cocaine. Their later albums were recorded while them being sober. Which records were the better ones?

 

Of course, other people just die or become insane instead.

 

[

]

 

Livin' the life.

[213374U]

You yourself implied drug use somehow lessens an individuals ability, which history and my examples of some of the most brilliant minds who used drugs proves incorrect.

 

[...]

 

The point I was trying to make was that drugs don't create brilliance, but they don't hinder it either.

There is no way to establish what the people in your examples might have or not have accomplished had they not done drugs. So, their value as "proof" is, let's say, debatable, as we don't have a "zero-point" to compare against.

 

 

Both Jung & Freud were frequent users of cocaine, morphine and other drugs, and they're the fathers of modern psychology.

"Сum hoc ergo propter hoc"

 

They both also had mommy/daddy issues, and were possibly closet homosexuals. Are we to assume that means that those things also foster "creative thinking" (whatever that means anyway)?

 

edited for extra smugness

Edited July 8, 2010 by 213374U

[heathen]

You yourself implied drug use somehow lessens an individuals ability, which history and my examples of some of the most brilliant minds who used drugs proves incorrect.

 

[...]

 

The point I was trying to make was that drugs don't create brilliance, but they don't hinder it either.

There is no way to establish what the people in your examples might have or not have accomplished had they not done drugs. So, their value as "proof" is, let's say, debatable, as we don't have a "zero-point" to compare against.

 

I think it proves what it needs to prove: being a drug user doesn't mean you're some slobbering idiot or a brainless stoner who doesn't shower.

 

Both Jung & Freud were frequent users of cocaine, morphine and other drugs, and they're the fathers of modern psychology.

"Сum hoc ergo propter hoc"

 

They both also had mommy/daddy issues, and were possibly closet homosexuals. Are we to assume that means that those things also foster "creative thinking" (whatever that means anyway)?

 

Both wrote very positively about drugs and recommended their use. Not quite the same.

Edited July 8, 2010 by heathen

[LadyCrimson]

This is all true to an extent, however I do feel that you're making it seem a bit more easy than it is. Growing high q. weed, especially if you want a certain strain is much like cooking or brewing beer; takes years of practise to make it perfect. Lots of people brew beer and make wine at home and still buy the professionally made stuff. Cannabis is naturally a bit different since there's no other process involved than the act of growing itself, but still if weed were legal I sure as hell wouldn't bother growing it, I'd just go to the nearest coffee shop and buy some exotic, strong and dried bud without any hassle.

Yeah, you're probably right...at least, in that most people wouldn't want the hassle of growing it. I mean, I don't even care about growing tomatoes or salad stuff in my backyard (hubby does, and keeps trying, heh). In terms of difficulty growing quality weed yourself, unless you're into all the cross pollination stuff, that's largely dependent on whether you can get the seeds from quality plants in the first place. (edit) Have you ever tried to grow it? Really...not that hard to grow "good" stuff. Mags try to make it sound complicated but it isn't. Anyway, for some users it might be an easy way to have a steady supply & then that corner store stuff would be an occasional treat, or something. Like hamburger at home and a steak on Sat.

 

Re: the fact some people are more affected by/affected differently by weed than others...

 

Well, that's just body/brain chemistry or something. It's no different, probably, then people who have 1 or 2 drinks & they're blotto and those who seem to be able to drink a bottle of hard liquor in a short time & still seem fairly unaffected. Every body is different...how weed affects one isn't going to be the same for everyone across the board. I knew several, in my growing up years, who could smoke weed literally all day long and still ride a bike everywhere, hold coherent convos, and do manual labor jobs with no issue. But I've also known those who could barely get off the floor/would fall asleep in an hour after a couple puffs and would complain they felt tired/foggy for three days after. heh

 

P.S. This probably all makes me sound like a heavy user or something, lol. I tried it/short phase in my youth but haven't since then. It just makes me sleepy & stupid. But a lot of the young adult crowd I hung around were really into the stuff (instead of beer-parties they had pot parties), so I observed a lot. ;p

Edited July 8, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[heathen]

This is all true to an extent, however I do feel that you're making it seem a bit more easy than it is. Growing high q. weed, especially if you want a certain strain is much like cooking or brewing beer; takes years of practise to make it perfect. Lots of people brew beer and make wine at home and still buy the professionally made stuff. Cannabis is naturally a bit different since there's no other process involved than the act of growing itself, but still if weed were legal I sure as hell wouldn't bother growing it, I'd just go to the nearest coffee shop and buy some exotic, strong and dried bud without any hassle.

Yeah, you're probably right...at least, in that most people wouldn't want the hassle of growing it. I mean, I don't even care about growing tomatoes or salad stuff in my backyard (hubby does, and keeps trying, heh). In terms of difficulty growing quality weed yourself, unless you're into all the cross pollination stuff, that's largely dependent on whether you can get the seeds from quality plants in the first place. (edit) Have you ever tried to grow it? Really...not that hard to grow "good" stuff. Mags try to make it sound complicated but it isn't. Anyway, for some users it might be an easy way to have a steady supply & then that corner store stuff would be an occasional treat, or something. Like hamburger at home and a steak on Sat.

 

I have never grown any myself no, but I have helped friends with their crops and know the process fairly well. I wouldn't say its hard if you know what you're doing. It's just that most people, even most weed smokers aren't interested in growing plants, they just want to get high. First few crops usually fail to some degree, and since a crop takes multiple months to start blooming it's a long investment, usually too long for someone who just wants to smoke weed.

 

You live in California right? That might be the reason why we've got fairly different views. Here in the north you need lamps and that stuff, not sure what the equipment is called in english, to get a cannabis plant to bloom.

Edited July 8, 2010 by heathen

[LadyCrimson]

You live in California right? That might be the reason why we've got fairly different views. Here in the north you need lamps and that stuff, not sure what the equipment is called in english, to get a cannabis plant to bloom.

Oh, yeah, silly me. Where you live would influence it a lot, if you have a very short growing season/too cold or something. Artificial lights are more of a pain in the arse to get right. Around here you can just germinate seedlings then toss them out in the backyard. I think (it feels like) half the illegal CA crops that cops like to raid, when they discover them, are people just growing them in obscure woodland park clearings.

Edited July 8, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[Gromnir]

"Prove, prove how? I'm only relying on those same references. I think it's plausible considering the rampart drug experimenting going on in the scientific community back then. "

 

...

 

how to prove? admissions is nice. eye witness accounts from credible resources might help. medical records or police reports has been used to "out" other drug users. can you find such for Einstein? Einstein's brain was removed shortly after his death, cut into little pieces, and studied... lots. is funny that such studies o' his brain never mentions drug use, eh? do you have Any credible source linking Einstein to cocaine usage... other than your belief that drug use were rampant in the science community during Einstein's lifetime? is not like we asked for irrefutable proof, but you ain't offered any credible proof. why would you do such a thing? there is more than a few world-changers whose drug use is well-documented, so why throw Einstein's name into the mix?

 

am not even gonna bother shredding your religion and drug influence points...

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps you should remove the word "most" from your vocabulary until you learn how to use it properly. am gonna recommend "some" as an alternative, and perhaps "many" if you is feeling particularly bold. avoid "most."

Edited July 8, 2010 by Gromnir