i found out why you dont want to smoke near your pc. yesterday i got this really wierd message.
Never smoke near your pc
- Thread starter spectaculardark
- Start date
was it fallowed by
"Brain cell loss irreversible press continue to shut down common sense"
"Brain cell loss irreversible press continue to shut down common sense"
firetoole said:
all i hear is 'blahblahblahpropagandablahblahblah'
how many of the things you do in your daily life come with the risk of irreversible damage,sometimes MUCH worse than brain cells? ever drive a car? ride a bike? walk across a busy street?
what's life without risks?
/end rant.
AlmostHeaven said:
firetoole said:
You sur do spelz good...
"If you marijuana shut application down, press quit"
AlmostHeaven said:
Mmmm, meth 
Seriously, that is a retarded argument. I'm not that against pot, but you will need to come up with a better reason than that for me to be completely ok with it. The problem with drugs is that it's not a risk. Irreversable brain damage almost certainly WILL happen. It's a selfish addiction, and everything begins to revolve around your needs. Biking, etc, it's about everyone, and it will potentially make you healthier, something that pot cannot do.
kinghami3 said:
Seriously, that is a retarded argument. I'm not that against pot, but you will need to come up with a better reason than that for me to be completely ok with it. The problem with drugs is that it's not a risk. Irreversable brain damage almost certainly WILL happen. It's a selfish addiction, and everything begins to revolve around your needs. Biking, etc, it's about everyone, and it will potentially make you healthier, something that pot cannot do.
yea.
we're not going to get into this argument because i hate having to make people look stupid.
meth is an awful, awful drug. anything harder than your 'Devils Weed' is retarded. i wouldn't know much else about those drugs besides pointless facts because i've never done them. sure, there are some bad downsides to cheeba, but you gotta be positive sometimes dammit. live life a little, it won't kill you! (3-times the amount of tar in 1 cigarette as there is in 1 joint.
)
Please take that argument to the pot thread so you can be shut down by many people.kinghami3 said:
Seriously, that is a retarded argument. I'm not that against pot, but you will need to come up with a better reason than that for me to be completely ok with it. The problem with drugs is that it's not a risk. Irreversable brain damage almost certainly WILL happen. It's a selfish addiction, and everything begins to revolve around your needs. Biking, etc, it's about everyone, and it will potentially make you healthier, something that pot cannot do.
Oh yeah, we don't give a crap whether or not you are OK with it.
and here we go. how long till we get to Godwin's Law?
I see your end tag, but where's your [rant]?AlmostHeaven said:
What are you, some kind of mini-Hitler? Raining all over their impending argurific Friday afternoon?Barbaton said:and here we go. how long till we get to Godwin's Law?
Can I get an order of proof to go with those assumptions? :evil:kinghami3 said:
Best use of a pancake I have ever seenN8 said:
lol.N8 said:
(you could have clicked the link if you were really curious.)
: ink:
Pot, alcohol, tabacco, etc are not that bad in themselves, it's what pot leads to that I hate. Every drug that comes after it will fvck you up. I have a lot of friends that smoke pot and that's it, but I also have a lot of friends that smoke pot and end up going to crack, acid, and meth. Cigars, alcohol, and even pot can be social drugs, but the next step becomes addiction when you become focused on your needs alone.pixelninja said:
I'm saying come up with a better argument. You compare pot to riding a bike, saying it is a calculated risk. Well so is meth, coke, acid, etc. There must be a better reason to smoke pot than that.AlmostHeaven said:
people can be addicted to anything. I have seen people's lives ruined by their addiction to food, as well as addictions to video games. Its not just drugs you can be addicted too. People who are addicts, have problems. The drugs are a sort of coping with their problems. Lots of times its such a good mask for their problems that people trying to help the addict dont see past the problem of the drugs and solve the true issue. Pot, in itself, is not bad at all. Its a very effective medicine. Helps tons of people with their ailments when their other option would be forking out major cash to the pharmacuetical companies. but people get addicted to it, like anything else.
and ****, people die on their bikes. If i went out and slipped a pedal and smacked the base of my skull against a curb, well adios boostindoubles.
And as far as addictions to drugs go, booze is far, far worse than pot. I mean totally in a different catagory. If i so chose, i could drop 20$ on a half gallon of cheap whiskey/ vodka and KILL myself in a single sitting. And if i didnt die, i would wake up three days later covered in puke with a headache so bad i would wish i was dead. That is if i'm not in the hospital.
Its not even feasible to smoke yourself to death. There is no way in hell you can overdose smoking pot. If you tried it would end in a glorious cheeto n pizza shoveling. You'd have a better chance of dying because you choked on the food you were eating.
and ****, people die on their bikes. If i went out and slipped a pedal and smacked the base of my skull against a curb, well adios boostindoubles.
And as far as addictions to drugs go, booze is far, far worse than pot. I mean totally in a different catagory. If i so chose, i could drop 20$ on a half gallon of cheap whiskey/ vodka and KILL myself in a single sitting. And if i didnt die, i would wake up three days later covered in puke with a headache so bad i would wish i was dead. That is if i'm not in the hospital.
Its not even feasible to smoke yourself to death. There is no way in hell you can overdose smoking pot. If you tried it would end in a glorious cheeto n pizza shoveling. You'd have a better chance of dying because you choked on the food you were eating.
I asked for proof, not more assumptions.kinghami3 said:
In one sentence you write that you have friends that don't do anything more than pot, and in the next you say that pot leads to harder drugs. Which is it? Is it a gateway drug or not? Even from your tiny limited exposure, you've shown that its hard to say whether pot may (or may not) lead to harder drugs. Is it the pot, or is it the person? Can you say for certain that if pot did not exist, these people would have never tried crack, acid or meth? No, you can't.
damn what did i start
I sure wish you would read my entire post before commenting. My proof is the people I've talked to; my best friend, many other friends, people on the street, etc. I cannot offer solid numbers, but case studies. Most of them have only tried those other drugs while high on pot. Does pot always lead people to hard drugs? No. Are there people that are on hard drugs that would never be had they not smoked pot? Yes, quite a few. Pot can be a medicine, pot can be a social drug, and pot can be a gateway drug. For a mission trip I have lived on the streets for 5 days; from seeing the lives of people destroyed because they smoked a little bit of harmless pot which led them to a cocaine addiction, I believe that the amount of harm it can lead to is not worth it. HOWEVER, I have seen alcohol destroy people's lives as well. The problem is not pot, but the addiction that it can lead to; it is overwhelming and consuming; once it gets out of control it is very difficult to stop.pixelninja said:I asked for proof, not more assumptions.
In one sentence you write that you have friends that don't do anything more than pot, and in the next you say that pot leads to harder drugs. Which is it? Is it a gateway drug or not? Even from your tiny limited exposure, you've shown that its hard to say whether pot may (or may not) lead to harder drugs. Is it the pot, or is it the person? Can you say for certain that if pot did not exist, these people would have never tried crack, acid or meth? No, you can't.
smoking pot does not lead to a cocaine addiction. That person who you met chose to try cocaine of his own will. Its a decision that some one makes. I've smoked a ton of grass over the last 8 years and never had an inclination to try cocaine. I've had close friends do it in front of me, and even people i looked up to at that time offer it to me. But its not something i wanted. In other words, the only thing that leads to an addiction is the mindset of the user.
Hello, could you all take a moment and become familiar with a few concepts? Explore anecdotal evidence and scientific method. Compare and contrast the two concepts. Can you pick which posts in this thread are based in anecdotal evidence?
Anecdotal evidence--
Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence based on personal observations and experiences (often recounted by way of anecdote) that has not been empirically tested, and which is often used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or statistically proven. The person using anecdotal evidence may or may not be aware of the fact that, by doing so, they are generalizing.
For example, a politician might publicly demand better teacher training facilities because their own son or daughter happens to have a spectacularly incompetent teacher, or conversely, might insist that schools are in fine shape because their own son or daughter happens to have a singularly wonderful teacher.
Anecdotal evidence is not fallacious per se; its characterization as unreliable must be understood to mean unreliable with respect to the scientific method. Many (perhaps most) true phenomena are first observed in the form of anecdotal evidence. For example eating limes to prevent scurvy was supported by anecdotal evidence for close to three centuries, beginning with the observations of James Lind. The causative elements involved were only identified after the structure of Vitamin C was discovered, and the link between Vitamin C and scurvy was only proven scientifically in 1932 by Szent-Gyorgyi.
Scientific method--
Scientific methods or processes are considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by scientific communities. Scientists use observations and deductions to develop technologies and propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of hypotheses. Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by experiment and further technologies developed. Any hypothesis which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. Once it has been established that a hypothesis is sound (by use of the above methods), it becomes a theory.
A common viewpoint is to take scientific methods as the underlying logic of scientific practices, e.g., Karl Popper. However, the emphasis on underlying logic is disputed by those emphasizing sociological aspects (see sociology of science and sociology of scientific knowledge). Scientific methods are means used by scientific communities for building supportable, evidence-based understandings of our natural world. There is often controversy in scientific communities about various aspects of these understandings.
From Wikipedia.
Anecdotal evidence--
Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence based on personal observations and experiences (often recounted by way of anecdote) that has not been empirically tested, and which is often used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or statistically proven. The person using anecdotal evidence may or may not be aware of the fact that, by doing so, they are generalizing.
For example, a politician might publicly demand better teacher training facilities because their own son or daughter happens to have a spectacularly incompetent teacher, or conversely, might insist that schools are in fine shape because their own son or daughter happens to have a singularly wonderful teacher.
Anecdotal evidence is not fallacious per se; its characterization as unreliable must be understood to mean unreliable with respect to the scientific method. Many (perhaps most) true phenomena are first observed in the form of anecdotal evidence. For example eating limes to prevent scurvy was supported by anecdotal evidence for close to three centuries, beginning with the observations of James Lind. The causative elements involved were only identified after the structure of Vitamin C was discovered, and the link between Vitamin C and scurvy was only proven scientifically in 1932 by Szent-Gyorgyi.
Scientific method--
Scientific methods or processes are considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by scientific communities. Scientists use observations and deductions to develop technologies and propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of hypotheses. Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by experiment and further technologies developed. Any hypothesis which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. Once it has been established that a hypothesis is sound (by use of the above methods), it becomes a theory.
A common viewpoint is to take scientific methods as the underlying logic of scientific practices, e.g., Karl Popper. However, the emphasis on underlying logic is disputed by those emphasizing sociological aspects (see sociology of science and sociology of scientific knowledge). Scientific methods are means used by scientific communities for building supportable, evidence-based understandings of our natural world. There is often controversy in scientific communities about various aspects of these understandings.
From Wikipedia.
thank you umm. :love:ummbikes said:
I :heart: drugz. 
Of course I am generalizing, I realize this and try to make it clear in every post, though I haven't come straight out and said this. I haven't used any scientific method, but I have talked to large populations that have been dramatically affected by this, not just a single case scenario. boostindoubles, If you smoke pot and have never been tempted to use any harder drugs, that's great, I'm happy for you, smoke away. But for those in need of an addiction, for something to take their mind off their troubles, after pot cocaine doesn't look so bad anymore. Stop looking at yourself to describe the entire drug using world.ummbikes said:
dude i am an addict, from a long line of alcoholics. That said, I havent smoked pot in months. I have more important things going on in my life. Has it been hard to not toke? at sometimes its been damn impossible to abstain.
I guess you didnt get what i said; the only thing that leads to addiction is the mindset of the user. Mindsets are hard to change, expecially when people dont want to change.
I'm not saying that because i didnt want to try cocaine, then the cocaine abusing world are somehow less than me, or ? / i dont even know what your trying to say about me. I was just providing the example of myself, the most relaible experience i have, for the mindsets of addicts. Granted, i am not every addict out there, but i have a ton of friends who are addicts. One in particular, a very close friend, i watched for years as he blew upwards of a half ounce of coke up his nose every 3 days. Thats like $400 bucks every three days! That would kill me. I watched his mindset change over the period of months in AA meetings, and now hes got a year sober. Hes finally, truly happy! He doesnt need a crutch to face the issues in his life or in the rest of the world.
i guess all this started as some sort of defense about why weed isnt a gateway to harder drugs. I think that the mind is the gateway that allows people to try harder drugs. Some people may rationalize the use of harder drugs by saying that, "oh i tried pot, this powder stuff i snort up my nose may not be so bad either" But that aint the pot man, its their mind. they choose to do the things they do, just like i have. peace
I guess you didnt get what i said; the only thing that leads to addiction is the mindset of the user. Mindsets are hard to change, expecially when people dont want to change.
I'm not saying that because i didnt want to try cocaine, then the cocaine abusing world are somehow less than me, or ? / i dont even know what your trying to say about me. I was just providing the example of myself, the most relaible experience i have, for the mindsets of addicts. Granted, i am not every addict out there, but i have a ton of friends who are addicts. One in particular, a very close friend, i watched for years as he blew upwards of a half ounce of coke up his nose every 3 days. Thats like $400 bucks every three days! That would kill me. I watched his mindset change over the period of months in AA meetings, and now hes got a year sober. Hes finally, truly happy! He doesnt need a crutch to face the issues in his life or in the rest of the world.
i guess all this started as some sort of defense about why weed isnt a gateway to harder drugs. I think that the mind is the gateway that allows people to try harder drugs. Some people may rationalize the use of harder drugs by saying that, "oh i tried pot, this powder stuff i snort up my nose may not be so bad either" But that aint the pot man, its their mind. they choose to do the things they do, just like i have. peace
Well said, and I think that we can agree that it is the mindset that lead to the addiction. However, I believe that pot can be a catalyst for that. I plan to go on to get my Masters --> PhD in Theology with a focus on ethics, and this would be one thing I would study. I have to go move back onto campus at the moment.boostindoubles said:
Thugz not hugz or Drugz from Thugz?Ciaran said:
I hate addiction also... I used to smoke up Oz's in about 4 days by myself... I did every drug you could get in Seattle up until '91 when I quit... but unfortunatly people need to run thier coarse with things in life... that' just the way it seems to work... so I say if you want to get loaded go for it... eventually you'll either find a reason to stop (ie grow out of it, find other intrests) or it will ruin your life... you'll figure it out soon enough...boostindoubles said: