What's new
By:

Legalize Cannabis

Scat said:
Until better, more accurate testing becomes available there are two options:

1. Test for THC and if it is present, prosecute regardless of when the last doobie was partaken of.

2. Test for alcohol. Test for narcotics. Completely ignore pot. After all, it is harmless, right?

Until better, more accurate testing procedures are available, it is what it is. Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right. You can't obey certain guidelines, you forfeit your right to drive.

Tell you what, I hear that people who smoke pot are highly creative and imaginative and have brilliant ideas when stoned. You should get together with Nate and GVC, smoke a fat one and figure out a way to more accurately test for current THC levels. Hopefully you remember what your brilliant idea was once you sober up. VIVA TRES EINSTEINS!!
Click to expand...

Not that hard, test for THC levels in the blood. All the urine tests currently used for drug tests just test for metabolites which are basically by-products of THC after it has been metabolized by the liver. Since these metabolites are mostly lipophilic, they get stored in your fat for 1-2 months depending on how heavy a smoker you are. Testing for THC in the blood would give you an accurate way to determine how high the individual is at the present time.
 
Bronco70 said:
I know Stoked already chimed in on this, but that was a pretty ignorant statement.

I'm LDS and I'm very much pro-legalization. And I'm not even vaguely alone.

If you're worrying about opinions based on misinformation and/or stereotyping, you may want to evaluate some of your own.
Click to expand...

I respect the LDS church and its members as much or more than anyone you know. That was in NO WAY a slam, but I admit it was stereotypical .. not of the LDS specifically, but of all people who have never had to fight an addiction or been enveloped by the 'world.' In my own church, we have those that want to tell the sinners how to live, how to shape up, but they lack an empathy that only someone that has been through can understand and communicate effectively from those experiences.

I was not calling the LDS church immune from understanding, I was actually giving props to the masses of the members for living good God-fearing lives. That can be considered stereotyping, sure, but it's not necessarily a bad thing .. and certainly wasn't meant to be. I probably should have worded it much better in the original post of mine.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Why would that change anything? Marijuana is not physically addictive, btw.
Click to expand...

However, nonspecialists (including many doctors) still tend to use an older perspective, now seen as outdated by experts. From their point of view, some drugs may be considered physically addictive — producing severe withdrawal — while others are psychologically addictive and only cause craving; those that are both are the hardest to quit.

In this view, the paradigm for addiction is heroin: the shaking, puking heroin junkie who can’t quit because the withdrawal sickness is impossible to bear. Because marijuana cessation is not linked with such severe symptoms, the drug isn’t seen as physically addictive. And considering that most people view physical addiction as uncontrollable, but psychological addiction as manageable with proper willpower, marijuana tends not to be regarded as addictive in general.

But virtually all addiction experts disagree with that stance. “The distinction is completely arbitrary. Psychological addiction occurs in your brain and it’s a physical change,” says Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Different brain processes may be involved in the psychological drive to take drugs and in the physical withdrawal symptoms when the drug is stopped — but both are brain changes.

As it turns out, the psychological drive is much more powerful than the physical experience of withdrawal. Cocaine, which also produces little withdrawal sickness but does create extreme craving, was once seen as nonaddictive — that was before America was introduced to crack in the 1980s. More than a century ago, Mark Twain summed up the essence of the problem, in reference to the addictiveness of tobacco: “Giving up smoking is easy,” he said. “I’ve done it thousands of times.”
Click to expand...

https://healthland.time.com/2010/10/19/is-marijuana-addictive-it-depends-how-you-define-addiction/

Some experts may disagree with you and your experts.

You say it is not physically addictive, I say the brain is a physical part of our body.
Do you disagree that your brain is not physically a part of your body?

Yes, or no will suffice.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ema
PKM said:
I respect the LDS church and its members as much or more than anyone you know. That was in NO WAY a slam, but I admit it was stereotypical .. not of the LDS specifically, but of all people who have never had to fight an addiction or been enveloped by the 'world.' In my own church, we have those that want to tell the sinners how to live, how to shape up, but they lack an empathy that only someone that has been through can understand and communicate effectively from those experiences.

I was not calling the LDS church immune from understanding, I was actually giving props to the masses of the members for living good God-fearing lives. That can be considered stereotyping, sure, but it's not necessarily a bad thing .. and certainly wasn't meant to be. I probably should have worded it much better in the original post of mine.
Click to expand...

I see where PKM is coming from. LDS (particularly those born and raised in Utah) are sheltered to an extent from the world the rest of us see.
 
JazzSpazz said:
https://healthland.time.com/2010/10/19/is-marijuana-addictive-it-depends-how-you-define-addiction/

Some experts may disagree with you and your experts.

You say it is not physically addictive, I say the brain is a physical part of our body.
Do you disagree that your brain is not physically a part of your body?

Yes, or no will suffice.
Click to expand...
The brain is physically part if your body, but that doesn't mean you're physically addicted just because you want to do something.

Scat said:
This is all just silly talk. They can quit any time they like.
Click to expand...
Absolutely they can. Nobody gets sick or dies because they quit smoking weed.
 
Scat said:
Clearly.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic. If you're just trying to be funny, please list some examples of people that got physically addicted to weed, and got sick or died when they quit.

There are plenty of people on this board who had no physical problems when they quit smoking weed, myself included.

It's not physically addictive, and that isn't even debatable, it's a fact.
 
colton said:
I think it's scary that you don't think this claim is scary: "If you try pot, there's a 1 in 4 chance that you will eventually get hooked on heroin, meth, or cocaine." Granted that's not what the numbers mean (because the correlation/causation business), but as I said before, to me that seems like a huge percentage. I'm amazed that you are so easily writing it off.
Click to expand...

Again, if that was the scary number then the gateway drug proponents would be using it. They don't, and I think it's pretty obvious why.
 
PearlWatson said:
You never name call. I've always respected that in you. I included other advocates in that statement.

Why do I have a problem with people using pot? On a personal level it turned my brother into a thieving ***. Since pot destroys the moral filters in a persons brain, it is destructive to our society since the constitution can only work with a moral and religious people. Also on a political level I see it is part of the stinky hippie entitlement culture.

As for your comment on my support for limited government. Legalizing pot will not limit government in the equation. It will increase government involvement through taxation, and they will still be policing who uses it and sells it. I also see thugs becoming legitimate wealthy businessmen and political figures like the Kennedy's.
Click to expand...

Hahahahahahaha....it destroys the "moral filters".....hahahahahahahahahahahaha....wow, that's fantastic stuff.

I hear it also makes you listen to negro jazz music and rape white women!
 
Nate505 said:
Again, if that was the scary number then the gateway drug proponents would be using it. They don't, and I think it's pretty obvious why.
Click to expand...

This issue comes down to perspective for me. Wether 23% is a large figure depends on your point of view. To high for me personally but I think that 23% (where the hell did it come from anyway?) would be reduced if it was legalized and pot was sold in places like gas stations and walmart.
 
JazzSpazz said:
Some experts may disagree with you and your experts.

You say it is not physically addictive, I say the brain is a physical part of our body.
Do you disagree that your brain is not physically a part of your body?

Yes, or no will suffice.
Click to expand...

Yes, the brain is physically part of one's body.

That being said, for whatever reason physical addiction has been defined as a withdrawals that affect the central nervous system. The NIDA guy can try to say it's arbitrary, but it's really pretty simple. There's a reason a severe alcoholic can die if they don't drink and a server stoner won't die if he doesn't get stoned. The DTs are a classic physical affect of addiction.

As for psychological addiction, nearly everything is. I spend an hour or so a day at this place for some reason.
 
I went to a debate about legalizing cannabis at school a couple of years ago between the guy who started "High Times" magazine and a former DEA agent. The only kind of logical argument the DEA guy had was that alcohol should have never been legalized and because we made that mistake doesn't mean we should make another in legalizing marijuana. That was his absolute best argument and it was still incredibly weak. The High Times guy made some great points about not ever ever smoking weed, because inhaling smoke is bad for you, you should make brownies or use a vaporizer. He also pointed out that if you are getting high in the morning before school or before you go to work you probably shouldn't be smoking weed because you aren't mature enough to handle it. But for those that can handle it they shouldn't be punished because some dumbasses become lazy and sit around and smoke all day, or else they should outlaw the internet, video games, and sleeping. Legalize it, tax it, regulate it and move on.
 
We need to start a movement to criminalize caffeine, Hostess Donut Gems, and smartphone apps.

These are all highly addictive, and we must be saved from ourselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top