[LukeD]

Not the case. I know plenty of people who are completely productive until they start smoking, and then they become useless. It isn't a stereotype, it's a fact. Being stoned out of your mind 24/7 is not going to help you become a productive member of society, no matter how much you want to believe it.

And you can bet your ass if it is ever legalized, it will see heavy taxation just like alcohol and tobacco.

It's everyone's place to judge when society in general has to clean up the mess and pay the medical bills and jail time for addicts, be it from tobacco, alcohol, heroin, meth etc. You should be especially interested living in the US with sweeping new health reforms about to take place. It's expensive to pay for lung cancer patients etc.

well put..
plus, considering the whole infrastructure surrounding drugs on both sides..there's too much time, money and people involved for it to ever be legalized.

as for the health care reform..that's a new thread. when a illegal alien junkie can walk into a hospital and get free care and me (a hard working US citizen who pays all his bills) has to pay up the ass...that's about time for me to exercise my rights using the 2nd amendment.

 

[Huck Banzai]

Not the case. I know plenty of people who are completely productive until they start smoking, and then they become useless. It isn't a stereotype, it's a fact. Being stoned out of your mind 24/7 is not going to help you become a productive member of society, no matter how much you want to believe it.

And you can bet your ass if it is ever legalized, it will see heavy taxation just like alcohol and tobacco.

It's everyone's place to judge when society in general has to clean up the mess and pay the medical bills and jail time for addicts, be it from tobacco, alcohol, heroin, meth etc. You should be especially interested living in the US with sweeping new health reforms about to take place. It's expensive to pay for lung cancer patients etc.

This argument hinges on the assumption of excessive use and abuse, which is not the norm. Of the people I know who 'indulge' very few are at all like you describe, where most are quite the opposite.

Its reasonable and correct to say that being 'stoned out of your mind 24/7'..is counter or anti-productive, but that statement continues the assumption.

No it isnt legal for recreational use in those states, but it has made significant progress in access and attitude. As previously stated, things change. Reason always wins out ultimately, it just takes time.

The anti-drug arguments always seems to be based on the unfounded assumptions that use is abuse and all users are significantly impeded or inclined towards criminal behavior (Outside of the obviously relative 'crime') by this assumed abuse. To repeat another previously stated comment: users of marijuana (and many other drugs) are NOT exclusively, or commonly, abusers or anything like the stereotypes that the ignorant and inexperienced propagate; Stereotypes that have repeatedly shown up in this thread indicting the ignorance of that speaker contrary to their assertions.


"Illegal alien junkie" -- you really have to use your imagination and an ability to make quick assumptions to actually include this type of comment in a legitmate discussion.

 

[P.T.W]

bla bla bla bla...isnt this a downhill forum????
Shouldnt this discussion be going on in the lounge???

 

[slowitdown]

Simmer down there chief, you've got your tinfoil hat on too tight.

Oh I get it. The Morristown smartass know-it-all dismisses factual, logical replies by accusing the reply of being the product of unhinged, tinfoil hat conspiracy paranoia.

Dude, you are embarrassing yourself. You don't know this subject, yet you pretend you do. The lack of background on this subject, and lack of support for your "arguments," are shown by how you reach all over the map for your justifications.

You aren't a lawyer, are you? Yet you pretend at all sorts of knowledge of laws and how they are implemented.

Your e-riding on RideMonkey establishes you as a typical Morristown yuppie whose posing is supposed to be a valid substitute for knowledge, skill and experience.

I'm glad I don't live in Morristown among poseurs like you any more.

Since you had no real response to my posts, but instead offered up more e-posing of faux-knowledge, I'll remind you that you still haven't offered up anything useful on this thread. But you have posted a lot of words! I guess that's a start.

Eloquently stated slowitdown.

JonKranked:

I'm pretty sure this is what riled up slowitdown:

"You talk about ignorance then spew these kinds of fallacies? Read up on your history here chief. "

but thanks, you were the catalyst for a dialogue I enjoyed reading.

Thanks for the appreciation.

What riled me up? Actually nothing, I'm not even riled up. The fact that I'm able to post argument doesn't mean I'm angry. I enjoy debate. It's fun to me. It's not done because I'm pissed off at the world.

I'm just pointing out what a fraud Jon is on this subject. He uses what I call "google-expertise" to establish a fake background of non-knowledge. He cuts and pastes stuff without even understanding what he is cutting and pasting. He tries to lecture me on jurisprudence without even knowing what that subject is, what it encompasses, what it means practically speaking for everyday law interpretation and enforcement.

It's no different than if he came in here and said, "Sam Hill wins races because of the dw-link." Oversimplifying and obfuscating, while sounding authoritative -- that's what he's doing.

I don't care if people respect his views on DH racing and equipment. He's a fool on this particular subject of marijuana laws and their enforcement, and the comparison of those subjects to the laws and enforcement regarding other chemicals that alter human consciousness.

 

[sbabuser]

Dude, you are embarrassing yourself. You don't know this subject, yet you pretend you do. The lack of background on this subject, and lack of support for your "arguments," are shown by how you reach all over the map for your justifications.

Wow, that's a lot of words for someone who's not worked up.
And all that could easily have been said about you...

 

[ohio]

I have not experienced the type of stoners that you guys speak of

Dude, have you read this thread?


I'm not peanut gallery. I'm not even stereotyping all smokers since I smoke on occasion and many of my productive, well-spoken friends smoke regularly. I even stated I'm for legalization. I'm specifically referring to the fact that the most vocal, rabid legalization advocates seem to be the ones that most fit the stoner stereotype and therefore do themselves a disservice by opening their mouths in order to share their deep thoughts on life, inform us of the conspiracy against pot, and in general "open our minds." Again, see this thread.

 

[Transcend]

Dude, have you read this thread?


I'm not peanut gallery. I'm not even stereotyping all smokers since I smoke on occasion and many of my productive, well-spoken friends smoke regularly. I even stated I'm for legalization. I'm specifically referring to the fact that the most vocal, rabid legalization advocates seem to be the ones that most fit the stoner stereotype and therefore do themselves a disservice by opening their mouths in order to share their deep thoughts on life, inform us of the conspiracy against pot, and in general "open our minds." Again, see this thread.

Precisely.

 

[Huck Banzai]

Dude, have you read this thread?


I'm not peanut gallery. I'm not even stereotyping all smokers since I smoke on occasion and many of my productive, well-spoken friends smoke regularly. I even stated I'm for legalization. I'm specifically referring to the fact that the most vocal, rabid legalization advocates seem to be the ones that most fit the stoner stereotype and therefore do themselves a disservice by opening their mouths in order to share their deep thoughts on life, inform us of the conspiracy against pot, and in general "open our minds." Again, see this thread.

The most active and well-heard pro-legalization advocates are nothing like you assert. The above statement is an assumption that lacks background and illuminates the fact that you have no experience or exposure to what you are talking about, yet are continuing to make solid assertions based on tired and disproven stereotypes.

Continuing to abide and restate these assumptions illuminates the core deficiency of your argument, and most certainly that repetition does not make them true.


"precisely" - no, not at all.

 

[SLanD3r]

And all that could easily have said about you...

I haven't been following the whole debate, but slowitdown's understanding of American jurisprudence seems pretty solid. Solid enough for me to suspect that he has gone through some form of legal training.


Regarding the references to health care costs associated to pot smoking. Here's more food for thought.

The newest studies highly conflict with "common sense" notions and suggest that pot smoking does not increase the risk for cancer.

1.
http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer?page=2

2.
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer

3.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm

Flip side of the coin:

1.
In the Dec. '99 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, they reported a link between pot smoking and head/neck cancers.

It is worthy to note that the later studies used much larger populations for their studies.

2.
The BMA (British Medical Association) maintains that marijuana "has been linked to greater risk of heart disease, lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema."
-"Doctors’ Fears at Cannabis Change." BBC News. 21 January 2004

________________

and imo the most prudent stance on the subject I've seen is set forth by the NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse), it is as follows:


"Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer(see 1); however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers (see 2). Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.
(1)
Tashkin DP. Smoked marijuana as a cause of lung injury. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 63(2):92–100, 2005.
(2)
Hashibe M, Morgenstern H, Cui Y, et al. Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: Results of a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15(10):1829–1834, 2006.


___________

 

[jonKranked]

So if the smoking method of consumption is the problem, bake some brownies or get a vaporizer.

 

[SLanD3r]

So if the smoking method of consumption is the problem, bake some brownies or get a vaporizer.

The methods you mentioned will most likely become the recommended methods if it becomes legal. UCSF and other reputable medical schools have done studies on the "Volcano" with very promising results in terms of THC delivery efficiency and it's health benefits (relative to smoking).

 

[ohio]

The most active and well-heard pro-legalization advocates are nothing like you assert.

Again, see this thread. You tell me the proportion of well-spoken reason to rabid drivel. You're the nugget of corn in the poo. May you should re-evaluate how you're judging "well-heard."

The above statement is an assumption that lacks background and illuminates the fact that you have no experience or exposure to what you are talking about, yet are continuing to make solid assertions based on tired and disproven stereotypes.

No experience or exposure? I live in San Francisco. I'm walking distance from half a dozen medicinal marijauna shops. Most of my friends smoke. A few grow. I don't need stereotypes. I can tell you, in this American Marijauna Mecca the most-heard are not the well-heard, and you're deluding yourself to think otherwise. And you're deluding yourself if you think that the well-run advocacy groups aren't set back a few months everytime some slack-jawed yahoo conspiracy theorist burner opens his or her mouth.

I'm not saying that there aren't well-run campaigns with good logical arguments. I can present many myself, and again, I'm for legalization. I'm saying that most of the folks in this thread should leave it to the well-run campaigns, and keep their dope holes shut.

 

[dhzion]

Dude, have you read this thread?


I'm not peanut gallery. I'm not even stereotyping all smokers since I smoke on occasion and many of my productive, well-spoken friends smoke regularly. I even stated I'm for legalization. I'm specifically referring to the fact that the most vocal, rabid legalization advocates seem to be the ones that most fit the stoner stereotype and therefore do themselves a disservice by opening their mouths in order to share their deep thoughts on life, inform us of the conspiracy against pot, and in general "open our minds." Again, see this thread.

So the waste cases that can't get off the couch and are dragging society down one doober at a time are the ones publicizing their opinions in public forums that you all in your hoity toity world frequent? The tail may be in site but you won't catch it, the circles however are quite amusing at this point.

 

[dropmachine]

 

[Leppah]

^^I concur.

I was agreeing with Ohio.

 

[Transcend]

This thread has gone far enough off the rails. Start a new thread in the political forum, this one is closed.