What's new
By:

We're saved! Spice is being outlawed, you know, for the kids.

Archie Moses said:
None of those comparisons are even remotely analogous to drugs/narcotics.
Click to expand...

Really? First off, I thought we were talking about SPICE (which I had never even heard of prior to this thread), which is supposed to have an effect similar to THC (in marijuana), IIUC. I'm not sure that there are more deaths and/or injuries attributable to marijuana than to electricity or practically any vehicle that runs on gasoline. Lots of laziness, sure. But I would hardly categorize it as dangerous. Less than regular cigarettes, in my estimation. And for the record, lest you consider me biased, I have never touched the stuff.

But drugs are drugs, right? Marijuana = cocaine = heroin, etc. No difference...
 
My cousin, who has been known to get baked, tried spice a while back and she said it was some scary ****. It made her sick and jittery and she didn't get a buzz. She says she'll just stick to pot instead. I'll take her word for it.
 
Bronco70 said:
Really? First off, I thought we were talking about SPICE (which I had never even heard of prior to this thread), which is supposed to have an effect similar to THC (in marijuana), IIUC. I'm not sure that there are more deaths and/or injuries attributable to marijuana than to electricity or practically any vehicle that runs on gasoline. Lots of laziness, sure. But I would hardly categorize it as dangerous. Less than regular cigarettes, in my estimation. And for the record, lest you consider me biased, I have never touched the stuff.

But drugs are drugs, right? Marijuana = cocaine = heroin, etc. No difference...
Click to expand...

Good post.

As a person who has not touched pot in many years I still maintain that it is safer and less addictive than both alcohol and cigarettes. I agreed to stop smoking pot so that my wife would stop smoking cigarettes. I had no problem stopping and she went through withdrawals and setbacks for a while. I had to assist her in stopping cigarettes yet I stopped pot just by deciding to. I had no side effects or withdrawals whatsoever. Alcohol (which I drink occasionally) is worse by far than either if not watched and controlled closely by the person using it. Alcoholics are alcoholics for life and they never stop being addicted. My sister in law was an alchy at 16 years of age and still has problems occasionally being around it and it's been 15 years since she received treatment.

I have never heard of spice but am against banning anything if it cannot be shown to be more addictive and worse than other legal drugs. I'm actually of the opinion that most drugs should be legalized and controlled. If people are stupid enough to use them they will. Making it illegal just makes it so more people get hurt while those people get their hands on the drugs.
 
gregbroncs said:
I'm actually of the opinion that most drugs should be legalized and controlled.
Click to expand...

This.

Edit: Thinking that legalizing (and regulating) marijuana is going result in a boom of new users is highly naive. For the most part, those who want to use, already do. And much of the crime associated with the distribution of it would dissolve.
 
honz said:
I read it, but thanks for your insight.
Click to expand...

Strange. I'd think if you read

Spice is a mixture of herbs treated with chemicals that simulate the effects of THC, the intoxicating agent in marijuana.
Click to expand...

it would answer your question. But, I guess it might not be enough information, but if you're looking for specifics, you really expect a media outlet to give out formulas to get people high if it's supposed to be getting outlawed?

Silly people.


I think the real problem with drugs is that people would often rather spend their money on drugs instead of essential items (you know, rent, food) and become a drain on society, needing money for essentials, as opposed to drugs making people go ape **** and commit crimes. Most people that get high do it in their basement and don't bother anybody. I'd go as far to say that alcohol is a more endangering substance when it comes to public safety than anything else, but the restriction on that is you have to be 21 to buy it, as if you are all of a sudden responsible.

The whole drug situation is retarded. The jailing times for drug use/possession is ridiculous, too. You'd get less jail time if you counterfeited legitimate goods, hurt companies and destroyed jobs in this country, plus you'd get to keep all of your money from counterfeiting. But if you do drugs and the cops catch you, man, you're ****ed.

And it's not like drug users are the most stand-up citizens ever, and I don't recommend doing drugs, but some of the bans they put on some drugs are completely ridiculous.
 
Bronco70 said:
This.

Edit: Thinking that legalizing (and regulating) marijuana is going result in a boom of new users is highly naive. For the most part, those who want to use, already do. And much of the crime associated with the distribution of it would dissolve.
Click to expand...

Agree with your edit. If a person wants MJ it's not hard to come by. Hell if they want Meth, coke or heroin it's really not that hard to come by.

But this thinking is one of the major things holding up the legalization of MJ and other drugs. Lots of people who have no clue believe that just because it is legal means more people will do it. They don't get that being legal or not makes little difference to the vast majority of people who want to do it.
 
Bronco70 said:
This.

Edit: Thinking that legalizing (and regulating) marijuana is going result in a boom of new users is highly naive. For the most part, those who want to use, already do. And much of the crime associated with the distribution of it would dissolve.
Click to expand...

This is the lesson of the prohibition experiment.
 
Archie Moses said:
Source? Dude, you guys need to watch Cops more often.
Click to expand...

https://www.druglibrary.org/********/hemp/general/bruin.htm
Marijuana is not a narcotic. Although California law calls it a narcotic, it is pharmacologically distinct from the family of opium derivatives and synthetic narcotics. (Wolstenholme, 1965; Watt, 1965; Garattini, 1965; 1 Crim 5351 Calif. District Court of Appeal, 1st Appel. Dist.)
Marijuana is not addicting. The use does not develop any physical dependence (see below). (Mayor's Committee on Marihuana, New York City, 1944; Allentuck & Bowman, 1942; Freedman & Rockmore, 1946; Fort, 1965a, 1965b; Panama Canal Zone Governor's Committee, 1933; Phalen, 1943; Indian Hemp-Drug Commission, 1894; Watt, 1965; I Crim 5351 Calif. District Court of Appeal, 1st Appel. Dist.; United Nations, 1964a, 1964b)

In a small percentage of individuals, a "psychological dependence" can develop, but a predisposition must be present. In his paper, "Dependence of the Hashish Type," Watt (1965, p. 65) concludes: The habit is gregarious and is easily abandoned. Personality defect and incipient or existing psychotic disorder are the essential factors underlying the formation of the habit.

Marijuana is not detrimental to the user's health. Even when used over long periods of time, it does not appear to cause physical or psychological impairment. (Mayor's Committee on Marihuana, New York City, 1944; Freedman & Rockmore, 1946; Fort, 1965a, 1965b; Panama Canal Zone Governor's Committee, 1933; Phalen, 1943; Indian Hemp-Drug Commission, 1894; Becker, 1963)
Click to expand...
 
H.E. Pennypacker said:
https://www.druglibrary.org/********/hemp/general/bruin.htm
Click to expand...

lol

I can give you like fifty definitions that say it is. Also, you might want to brush up on Utah State law and history.

The term narcotic (pronounced /nɑrˈkɒtɨk/) originally referred medically to any psychoactive compound with sleep-inducing properties. It has since become associated with opioids, commonly morphine and heroin. The term is, today, imprecisely defined and typically has negative connotations[1]. In a legal context, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation", such as cocaine and marijuana. From a pharmacological standpoint, it is a vague and ineffectual term [2]. On the other hand, the legal usage of the word does provide a convenient shorthand term, useful in contexts where the legal status of a drug is more pertinent than its pharmacological action.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 History
* 2 See also
* 3 References
* 4 External links

[edit] History

The term "narcotic" is believed to have been coined by the Greek physician Galen to refer to agents that numb or deaden, causing loss of feeling or paralysis. It is based on the Greek word ναρκωσις (narcosis), the term used by Hippocrates for the process of numbing or the numbed state. Galen listed mandrake root, altercus (eclata)[3] seeds, and poppy juice (opium) as the chief examples.[4][5] “Narcotic” is a term derived from the Greek word narke, meaning "stupor." It originally referred to any substance that relieved pain, dulled the senses, or induced sleep[6]. Now, the term is used in a number of ways. Some people define narcotics as substances that bind at opiate receptors (cellular membrane proteins activated by substances like heroin or morphine) while others refer to any illicit substance as a narcotic. From a legal perspective, narcotic refers to opium, opium derivatives, and their semi-synthetic substitutes.[7] Though in U.S. law, due to its numbing properties, cocaine is also considered a narcotic.
Click to expand...

Seems to be a narcotic by definition to me.


*Everything I said, is subject to change to whatever kicky decides or decides not to prove wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top