Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[GVC]

The only thing I can guess is that Salty is in denial. Either that, or he is smoking some really, really low-grade ditch weed, or perhaps oregano.

I love you so much.

 

[TroutBum]

I love you so much.

Do I smell a 3-some?


I call middle.

 

[freakazoid]

I love you so much.

I know that's just the weed talkin', but who am I kidding? I'll take what I can get.

xoxoxoxoxo

Do I smell a 3-some?


I call middle.

I'll bring the green jello and the ***** bags, but I'm not being the girl again this time. That never turns out like you say it will.

 

[GVC]

I know that's just the weed talkin', but who am I kidding? I'll take what I can get.

xoxoxoxoxo

Do black people have pale dogs named Whitey?

 

[moevillini]

Do black people have pale dogs named Whitey?

Probably. A black family I know has a pair of standard poodles, one white and one black, that are named HONKY and TONK.

Now I'll have to ask if they were high when they chose those names.


Cell phones present a far deadlier impairment to driving than marijuana.

 

[CONAN]

My contention is and has been all along, that weed doesn't impair driving. At least not enough to where a law should be made to outlaw it.

"Weed doesn't affect you!" "Wait, I mean it does but not enough to hurt." Make up your mind, Dude. Even your fellow potheads in this thread are turning against you.

 

[CONAN]

If you slow down enough none of the effects of marijuana hinder your driving, so your driving isn't impaired anymore.

So there is a speed where weed does impair your driving, huh? What speed is that? Wait, I thought you said weed doesn't impair your driving. Hmmmm.

 

[SaltyDawg]

So there is a speed where weed does impair your driving, huh? What speed is that? Wait, I thought you said weed doesn't impair your driving. Hmmmm.

I never said there was a speed where weed impairs your driving. I was just disputing your claim that slowing down still meant you were impaired.

Look man, there is a huge difference between you being impaired and your driving ability being impaired. Someone with a sprained ankle is impaired but that doesn't always mean their ability to drive is impaired.

 

[GVC]

Here's my most recent response (with minor alterations...I assume everyone's used to that from me by now) to Colton (with an excerpt from one of his PMs to me) via PM. I hope he doesn't mind me quoting him here (if so, I can edit this post...since I'll probably be doing that half a dozen times anyway):

You're arguing against yourself here. If the consequences are so severe, and yet so many people are willing to face such a big risk, then it seems to me marijuana is FAR more addictive than just being a "a mild psychotropic substance". In fact, that's essentially the DEFINITION of an addict: someone who continues on with his/her behavior despite obvious substantial risks and/or negative consequences...

And if the answers to your two questions were "clearly" no and yes, then it should be simple to get the laws changed. Clearly it isn't so clear to most folks. But we've been over that before.

It's addictive like any pleasurable and beneficial thing is addictive, and I think that's why it's going to be hard to bridge this gap: Cannabis use has been a great help to me and to many others I know. People I've hated for being mean/cruel have become people I love, largely with the help of cannabis. I've gone from being a completely worthless, unproductive and unhappy wreck to someone who has hope for the future and is willing to work to better my life and the lives of others.

You choose to dismiss this outright. I've gone long periods of time without consuming cannabis, but my life is greatly enhanced when I do consume it. My consumption is limited to evenings and occasional weekends. It doesn't interfere with my daily responsibilities (I'm far more responsible now than I ever was before, although I realize this alone is not a terribly compelling argument).

And you're right that it isn't clear to most people, but that's because most people don't consume cannabis AND were brainwashed in schools, churches and via their TV that cannabis is a terrible, life-wrecking substance. It's not, but it's hard as hell to overturn terrible drug laws given how much power, influence and economic resources the prohibitionists (I'd include tobacco producers, pharmaceutical companies, the prison-industrial complex, and the growers of cotton and other agricultural substitutes for cannabis in this group) have. Despite these facts, oppressive drug laws are changing.

Most people can benefit from psychotropic drug use. There have been strong cultures who have used them for religious, social and therapeutic purposes for thousands of years, and they will continue to do so to their benefit (hell, most Christians use wine as a sacrament). Last night I watched a very good Film Board of Canada movie entitled Hoffman's Potion. It's a documentary about the inventor and early psychologist promoters of LSD for treatment purposes, and I recommend it highly. It may help you see this whole problem in a different light (the same goes for The Union, although it's a little less balanced, requiring a greater degree of open-mindedness).

 

[SaltyDawg]

"Weed doesn't affect you!" "Wait, I mean it does but not enough to hurt." Make up your mind, Dude. Even your fellow potheads in this thread are turning against you.

Don't try to act like I am changing my argument. It only makes you look like even more of a moron here. Anyone who was in this discussion from the start (in the other thread that prompted this one) knows the debate started when SalmonHobo said Viagra was legal and weed illegal because weed has the potential to injure or kill, and then later said he was talking about driving when he was called on that statement.

So this has always been about making driving more dangerous. You may think people are "turning against me" but at least people were with me in the first place.

Again, there are actual studies by the government that completely agree with me on this (and they are posted in this thread). So stop acting like I'm out in left field here when you have probably never had a hit of weed in your life and obviously don't know what the heck you're talking about. All you know is what you've been told by someone else that probably never had a hit in their life and didn't know what they were talking about either.

All of the actual evidence posted totally agrees with me. Lets see, what we have, there is a biased site using some study that said someone who smokes way more weed than a weed smoker would consider normal would drive like someone who is way under the legal alcohol limit in Utah (and that was actually posted as proof that weed makes it dangerous, lol). Then there are the people here saying "I saw someone make a mistake driving once and while nobody got hurt, and there wasn't even an accident, and there was no arrest, in fact he didn't even get pulled over, I can't be certain but i think weed may have contributed to him making that mistake."

Hardly proof that weed actually does make driving dangerous.

In short, you have absolutely nothing to go on. You're talking about a subject that you have absolutely no experience in, and all of the scientific data on the matter indicates that you are wrong. So don't act like I'm the idiot or the one who needs to change his story or whatever. The fact of the matter is while people may or may not agree with me, at least I am presenting a valid argument. You're just here wasting server space like always. And I can pretty much guarantee you even the people who don't agree with me on the weed topic, or are "turning against me" or whatever, agree with that.

 

[GVC]

And I can pretty much guarantee you even the people who don't agree with me on the weed topic, or are "turning against me" or whatever, agree with that.

I think a couple of us are just having a little (harmless?) fun at your expense. No hard feelings, I hope. While I don't agree entirely with what you're saying, I do agree that comparing driving impairment due to cannabis to driving impairment due to alcohol is bat-**** crazy.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I think a couple of us are just having a little (harmless?) fun at your expense. No hard feelings, I hope. While I don't agree entirely with what you're saying, I do agree that comparing driving impairment due to cannabis to driving impairment due to alcohol is bat-**** crazy.

It's all good man. I don't know why I even respond to that troll.

 

[Scat]

It's all good man. I don't know why I even respond to that troll.

An overwhelming need to always prove you're right?

 

[colton]

Here's my most recent response (with minor alterations...I assume everyone's used to that from me by now) to Colton (with an excerpt from one of his PMs to me) via PM. I hope he doesn't mind me quoting him here (if so, I can edit this post...since I'll probably be doing that half a dozen times anyway):

You're arguing against yourself here. If the consequences are so severe, and yet so many people are willing to face such a big risk, then it seems to me marijuana is FAR more addictive than just being a "a mild psychotropic substance". In fact, that's essentially the DEFINITION of an addict: someone who continues on with his/her behavior despite obvious substantial risks and/or negative consequences. Personally, I don't know enough about marijuana laws to say whether "unredeemable felon" is an accurate depiction, and I don't know enough to say for sure how addictive it is. But you can't be right on both accounts. Or so it seems to me.

And if the answers to your two questions were "clearly" no and yes, then it should be simple to get the laws changed. Clearly it isn't so clear to most folks. But we've been over that before.

No problem. I inserted a bit more of my quotes for completeness. And just to put them in context for others, my first paragraph there was in response to GVC's complaint about the injustice of "locking someone up, thus making them an unredeemable felon, for smoking a mild psychotropic substance". Thus my comments about him arguing against himself and the nature of addiction. And my second paragraph was in response to a statement by GVC that "The relevant questions are: 1. Does the penalty fit the crime? 2. Are the consequences as a result of the policy worse than the consequences without the policy? The answers to the above questions when applied to cannabis are clearly "no" and "yes", respectively." Thus my comment about his use of the word "clearly".

 

[GVC]

Sorry Colton. I didn't omit the rest of your PM for strategic or other malicious/back-handed reasons. I only posted that section of your PM to add a little context to my response to you (plus, that's precisely what I quoted in my PM).

 

[colton]

Sorry Colton. I didn't omit the rest of your PM for strategic or other malicious/back-handed reasons. I only posted that section of your PM to add a little context to my response to you (plus, that's precisely what I quoted in my PM).

No worries, I didn't think you had.

 

[CONAN]

I never said there was a speed where weed impairs your driving. I was just disputing your claim that slowing down still meant you were impaired.

Look man, there is a huge difference between you being impaired and your driving ability being impaired. Someone with a sprained ankle is impaired but that doesn't always mean their ability to drive is impaired.

Your memory is shot from your days of smoking.

You said "That's why they tend to not drive too fast where any of that stuff impedes their driving." So there is some speed where someone high suddenly becomes impaired?

Also you have claimed slowing down helps potheads drive better. But according to you, potheads aren't impaired, so why the need to slow down?

You head is firmly impanted on this one, pothead.

 

[GVC]

you head is firmly impanted on this one, pothead.

oh noes!

 

[CONAN]

Don't try to act like I am changing my argument. It only makes you look like even more of a moron here. Anyone who was in this discussion from the start (in the other thread that prompted this one) knows the debate started when SalmonHobo said Viagra was legal and weed illegal because weed has the potential to injure or kill, and then later said he was talking about driving when he was called on that statement.

You can spin it however you want but even other potheads are throwing you under the bus in this thread. And you can't look any more like a moron. You hit rock bottom years ago on that one.

But of course, you come in and qualify everything and all your stuff is fact and anyone against you is wrong. Spin, BS, spin, BS, spin, .... We get it.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Your memory is shot from your days of smoking.

You said "That's why they tend to not drive too fast where any of that stuff impedes their driving." So there is some speed where someone high suddenly becomes impaired?

Also you have claimed slowing down helps potheads drive better. But according to you, potheads aren't impaired, so why the need to slow down?

You head is firmly impanted on this one, pothead.

Again, I was pointing out that where alcohol tends to make people drive faster, weed tends to make people drive slower.

Yes, there is a point where driving becomes impaired if you drive to fast. You don't need any drug for that to be true. Driving 150 MPH makes your driving dangerous even if you are stone cold sober.

You can spin it however you want but even other potheads are throwing you under the bus in this thread. And you can't look any more like a moron. You hit rock bottom years ago on that one.

But of course, you come in and qualify everything and all your stuff is fact and anyone against you is wrong. Spin, BS, spin, BS, spin, .... We get it.

I am not spinning anything. I am the one that posted actual government studies to support my position, troll.

Weed makes you high. We get that. But as part of that high you tend to slow down when driving. So the high doesn't make the driving more dangerous. And by that I mean, it should not be illegal based on its potential to injure or kill. That's the last time I clear this up for you. If you're serious about discussing this, you absolutely know where I stand and we can have a serious discussion about it. Further attempts to ruin this thread with your trolling will be ignored.