Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[GVC]

I'm ready to take on the consequences, which would indicate responsible behavior. At the same time, I've actually been active in trying to get laws changed. Again, responsible.

And again, the benefits outweigh the negative side effects (which, I might add, or much more benign than your average pharmaceutical product) for A LOT of people. Hell, I honestly think regulated, responsible use of psychotropic substances is good for most people in certain situations. There's really no need to throw the baby out with the bath water here.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Abuse of cannabis is bad (yes, a tautological statement). Its psychotropic properties, long-term and short-term side effects, and medicinal properties should be considered carefully when making decisions about use (just as with all drugs...and, well, anything you consume/do). With that said, many people receive benefit from its use, and unless the damage it causes to the individual or his community/society is greater than the benefit, I see no reason why it should be prohibited entirely.

Even if there were no benefits at all, it still should not be up to the government to determine if you are allowed to smoke weed or not.

If you think people will hurt others if they abuse it, then make hurting others illegal (it probably already is). But the government has no right to make somebody else's morals into law. They can and should protect citizens from others, but they have no right to tell anyone not to do something that isn't going to hurt anyone else in any way.

 

[GVC]

Smoking weed is irresponsible

I understand the consequences- both positive and negative- of use, and am willing to live with them. Further, I don't let cannabis get in the way of my responsibilities (I don't smoke during the day). How is that irresponsible in any way?

 

[CONAN]

I'm ready to take on the consequences, which would indicate responsible behavior.

I don't think it indicates that. If you want to murder someone and are ok with the consequences that doesn't mean your behavior is responsible.

At the same time, I've actually been active in trying to get laws changed. Again, responsible.

Agreed.

And again, the benefits outweigh the negative side effects for A LOT of people.

I disagree.

 

[GVC]

I guess what I'm looking for are definitions of the words "wrong" and "irresponsible". You seem to just use these words in place of your own prejudices.

 

[GVC]

I disagree.

Just because? I want to get into the religious side because I know that's what you're basing this on.

I'm certain I've read more studies on this than you have, and have a lot more experience with the drug than you do. I know what it does and doesn't do.

 

[CONAN]

I guess what I'm looking for are definitions of the words "wrong" and "irresponsible". You seem to just use these words in place of your own prejudices.

You seem to have and agenda and have already passed judgement. If that's not the case then sorry. I've answered your questions and you don't keep the discussion going. You just change tactics. Whatever.

 

[CONAN]

Just because? I want to get into the religious side because I know that's what you're basing this on.

I'm certain I've read more studies on this than you have, and have a lot more experience with the drug than you do. I know what it does and doesn't do.

Like I said you've got an agenda (surprise) and you're not really looking to discuss here. You just want to get to where you want this discussion to go. That's why your blowing off legal ramificaitons, chemical issues, and social issues. You just want to talk religion want to put all my arguments into the religion category. Lame tactics.

If you know where I'm coming from and you know so much more anyway then just agree to disagree. You're obviously not going to have a fair discussion here as it's clear you keep trying to steer everything toward religion even though I am not. You're weird.

 

[GVC]

Look, you're just tossing out the words "irresponsible", "sad", "pathetic" and "wrong" without any justification AT ALL. I'm trying to understand what the justification is. How do you define those terms, and how do they apply to cannabis use?

You talk in vague generalities about chemical and social "issues". What are those issues? You've not actually mentioned a single one, as far as I can tell.

 

[CONAN]

Look, you're just tossing out the words "irresponsible", "sad", "pathetic" and "wrong" without any justification AT ALL. I'm trying to understand what the justification is. How do you define those terms, and how do they apply to cannabis use?

You talk in vague generalities about chemical and social "issues". What are those issues? You've not actually mentioned a single one, as far as I can tell.

I don't think that's true. I think I've explained plenty you just are reading what you want to read and are just itching to jump on religion and prejudice.

But fine let's talk about being responsible. Let's look at a statement you made and my response. You said "I'm ready to take on the consequences, which would indicate responsible behavior." To which I countered "I don't think it indicates that. If you want to murder someone and are ok with the consequences that doesn't mean your behavior is responsible."

You failed to respond to my response (at least that I saw). I think it's safe to say that your theory of being ready and willing to take on consequences does not indicate responsible behavior. Unless your belief doesn't transfer to murder.

 

[CONAN]

Look, you're just tossing out the words "irresponsible", "sad", "pathetic" and "wrong" without any justification AT ALL.

And you're just tossing out the words "prejudice" and "religion" without any justification AT ALL.

 

[Agoxlea]

Like I said you've got an agenda (surprise) and you're not really looking to discuss here. You just want to get to where you want this discussion to go. That's why your blowing off legal ramificaitons, chemical issues, and social issues. You just want to talk religion want to put all my arguments into the religion category. Lame tactics.

If you know where I'm coming from and you know so much more anyway then just agree to disagree. You're obviously not going to have a fair discussion here as it's clear you keep trying to steer everything toward religion even though I am not. You're weird.

I've been following this thread, but haven't really felt the need to chime in much so far. However, it appears GVC is the one trying to understand where you are coming from while you keep dodging questions, making ad hominem attacks, and contradicting yourself.

I think everyone here agrees that driving high is worse than driving stone cold sober, but there are clearly differing opinions on the legality of that driving. With the lack of an accurate test for current impairment, or even reasonable criteria to measure which drivers are dangerous I happen to think that most high driving should be tolerated. Obviously reckless and unsafe driving are already illegal and I am in agreement with Salty that it wouldn't become a public safety issue. You can't really argue that it is currently impossible to detect current marijuana impairment. You can, however, like both Trout, GVC, and many other disagree with me on whether the number of people driving would increase traffic injuries/fatalities.

Everything else you have argued have been purely value judgments. You haven't any evidence to support your claims, and have ignored any evidence to the contrary. You are hiding behind the fact that in your mind society hates weed and because of that you don't need evidence of any actual problems with it, let alone enough to outweigh its benefits and justify its illegality. At least you are consistent in also looking down on those who legally drink alcohol.

I just wanted to point out this little gem:

GVC's intelligence isn't at issue here.

So you meant no offense saying anyone who smokes weed is an irresponsible sad case who has mush for brains. Got it.

No, I'm still rolling with that generally speaking.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that to you his intelligence is still very much an issue. You have no basis to think that of someone who is clearly very intelligent other than value judgments made from your own moral pedestal. I disagree with some of the stuff trout has been arguing here, but he isn't attacking anyone. You are making attacks and then claiming otherwise.

 

[Nate505]

It is also hit and miss. Sometimes it is the most potent **** around, other times it will just have you sitting there bawling like a baby. It also tends to produce very erratic highs along with copious amounts of aggravation.

Hahaha, that's damn funny.

 

[GVC]

I don't think that's true. I think I've explained plenty you just are reading what you want to read and are just itching to jump on religion and prejudice.

You've explained nothing. I'm willing to discuss the merits of cannabis with you. I, and many others in this thread, have stated how cannabis has positively affected our lives. You've returned with vague statements about social and chemical "issues". What are those issues? I think you'll find that a lot of the early studies on cannabis and its effects are extremely misleading (or worse), and that studies conducted since decriminalization and medicinal regimes have taken hold (that is, since it's been possible to do more rigorous studies) discredit a lot of these earlier studies. The most glaring example of this being the commonly held notion (and the "study" that backed it up) that marijuana kills brain cells.

But fine let's talk about being responsible. Let's look at a statement you made and my response. You said "I'm ready to take on the consequences, which would indicate responsible behavior." To which I countered "I don't think it indicates that. If you want to murder someone and are ok with the consequences that doesn't mean your behavior is responsible."

You failed to respond to my response (at least that I saw). I think it's safe to say that your theory of being ready and willing to take on consequences does not indicate responsible behavior. Unless your belief doesn't transfer to murder.

I was merely using your previous definition of responsible behavior (per your statement about knowing the consequences when you skirt the law). You seem to have missed that. You seem to apply different standards to others than you apply to yourself.

I don't think that standard of responsible behavior holds up to even modest scrutiny, as you've pointed out.

And you're just tossing out the words "prejudice" and "religion" without any justification AT ALL.

When someone makes assertions like "drugs are bad", "doing drugs is wrong/pathetic/sad", "altering your mind is bad", "those who do drugs are irresponsible", "those who do drugs have mush for brains" without providing ANY justification for those assertions, despite repeatedly requests for said justification, I can only assume that you've come to those conclusions based exclusive on personal prejudice. Further, as is the case with many, I assume that these prejudices are born out of your culture (religion). I think I gave you the benefit of the doubt long enough (something you haven't been willing to give me from the very start).

If there are reasons- these social and chemical "issues"- I'm open to discuss them.

 

[GVC]

And, again, here's a link to a very good website with a pretty comprehensive collection of links to academic studies on cannabis and its effects:

https://grannystormcrowslist.webs.com/apps/forums/

Yes, the old lady who maintains the site is a consumer of cannabis, but the studies are from a variety of peer-reviewed journals, and include NIH (National Institute of Health) studies.

 

[TroutBum]

I disagree with some of the stuff trout has been arguing here, but he isn't attacking anyone. You are making attacks and then claiming otherwise.

First of all, shame on you for not agreeing with me. You'll come around in the end, but why torture yourself until then?

Secondly, I most certainly have been attacking. Perhaps I need to try harder. Jerk face.

 

[CONAN]

However, it appears GVC is the one trying to understand where you are coming from

I disagree and so does GVC. He has already admitted he thinks my arguments are religious-based even though I haven't brought up religion. Did you not read that? Because that is not trying to understand at all.

You can't really argue that it is currently impossible to detect current marijuana impairment.

Are you sure you're reading the right posts cuz I never argued that. Salty did.

At least you are consistent in also looking down on those who legally drink alcohol.

And here we finally have it. Someone who thinks because I think something is wrong that means I look down on them. You guys are like girls with how sensitive you get. Can you guys have a discussion at all about the right or wrong about something you do without getting so emotional?

Purposely altering your brain is sad. That's not an outlandish position.

Breaking laws, chemically messing with your brain, and such are all irresponsible whether it be socially or legally.

Smoking weed affects the developing brain. GVC claims he has to beware these negative consequences.

Where is the prejudice? Where is the judgment? Where is the religion?

 

[CONAN]

You've returned with vague statements about social and chemical "issues". What are those issues?

Wait, are you claiming smoking marijuana pre-25 has no effect on the brain? Cuz I figured that was a given and so no need for details. But if you don't believe that we can go into more if you want no problem.

As for social issues you are breaking the law. That is a social issue.

These are both obvious or so I thought. Do you really believe there are no chemical or social consequences to smoking weed?

You seem to apply different standards to others than you apply to yourself.

Well like I said you've already got it all figured and are assuming much so why bother.

When someone makes assertions like "drugs are bad", "doing drugs is wrong/pathetic/sad", "altering your mind is bad", "those who do drugs are irresponsible", "those who do drugs have mush for brains" without providing ANY justification for those assertions, despite repeatedly requests for said justification, I can only assume that you've come to those conclusions based exclusive on personal prejudice. Further, as is the case with many, I assume that these prejudices are born out of your culture (religion). I think I gave you the benefit of the doubt long enough (something you haven't been willing to give me from the very start).

Again, with the assuming. And now a persecution complex to go along with it. Speaking in general terms doesn't mean you are prejudiced and it's lame to just assume that from the start. You are guilty of the very behavior you are accusing me of. You're just a bitter guy with an axe to grind.

If you can reign in your agenda I got no problem going into details. But if you've already made your decision about where I'm coming from then there's really no point.

 

[GVC]

I am trying to understand where you're coming from, but you've provided nothing but baseless assertions. As I said in my last post, I can only assume prejudice. Further, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that these prejudices are cultural.

You've continually dodged everything thrown your way, been extremely condescending ("mush for brains" and the like), and then turned around and accused other people of all sorts of activities that you're far more guilty of.

meh.

 

[GVC]

Again, with the assuming.

You've offered up nothing in defense of your positions. What else do I have to go on but reasonable assumptions?