What's new
By:

Legalize Cannabis

Stoked said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you, to a certain extent. But you make it sound like LDS folk are pretty much Amish. That just isn't the case. We live and work in the real world just like everybody else. There is a difference in that LDS people are less likely to experience some of the things that others do, but it isn't because they just flat out aren't aware. They make choices.

Regardless, I don't think that one's perspective, no matter how sheltered it may be, should be excluded in a discussion in an open forum. If you feel like that perspective is based in misinformation or misunderstanding, disagree and move on.
 
Bronco70 said:
I would agree with you, to a certain extent. But you make it sound like LDS folk are pretty much Amish. That just isn't the case. We live and work in the real world just like everybody else. There is a difference in that LDS people are less likely to experience some of the things that others do, but it isn't because they just flat out aren't aware. They make choices.

Regardless, I don't think that one's perspective, no matter how sheltered it may be, should be excluded in a discussion in an open forum. If you feel like that perspective is based in misinformation or misunderstanding, disagree and move on.
Click to expand...

Growing up in SLC and then living a few other places and visiting several more while I was in the Navy then returning to SLC...I don't think Utahans are any more sheltered than anybody else, not even the LDS ones.
 
Bronco70 said:
I would agree with you, to a certain extent. But you make it sound like LDS folk are pretty much Amish. That just isn't the case. We live and work in the real world just like everybody else. There is a difference in that LDS people are less likely to experience some of the things that others do, but it isn't because they just flat out aren't aware. They make choices.

Regardless, I don't think that one's perspective, no matter how sheltered it may be, should be excluded in a discussion in an open forum. If you feel like that perspective is based in misinformation or misunderstanding, disagree and move on.
Click to expand...

I think it is a big stretch to say "sheltered to an extent" = amish. There are certain issues about which they are sheltered. How they are sheltered is irrelevant.

I was the first to point out that there opinion was no less valid then others.
 
Maybe I'm wrong, completely. But I never said they're sheltered, I said they not, generally speaking gotten themselves into the same amount of 'activities' as the rest of the country's population. Like I said, maybe I'm wrong, but I highly doubt that.
 
Gameface said:
Growing up in SLC and then living a few other places and visiting several more while I was in the Navy then returning to SLC...I don't think Utahans are any more sheltered than anybody else, not even the LDS ones.
Click to expand...

Isn't it interesting the different experiences/perspectives people get by living life.

I have lived in northern and southern Utah, Denver, Seattle, Memphis...and my experience has been the opposite.

Nothing wrong with LDS (Utah LDS) perspective. It is just different.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Why would that change anything? Marijuana is not physically addictive, btw.
Click to expand...

Not physically addictive in the sense that you go through with physiological withdrawal symptoms perhaps, but it's still addictive. As a testament to that, I point out the tens or hundreds of thousands of jailed individuals that have been referenced in the thread, who used marijuana despite knowing that there was a substantial risk that it could cause them to be imprisoned if caught. If that's not addiction, I don't know what is.
 
SaltyDawg said:
It's not physically addictive, and that isn't even debatable, it's a fact.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia disagrees with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_dependence
"Evidence suggests that cannabis users can develop tolerance to the effects of THC and experience withdrawal symptoms."

It's not as physically addictive as some drugs, perhaps, but your "isn't even debatable, it's a fact" claim seems to be just plain wrong.
 
colton said:
Wikipedia disagrees with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_dependence
"Evidence suggests that cannabis users can develop tolerance to the effects of THC and experience withdrawal symptoms."

It's not as physically addictive as some drugs, perhaps, but your "isn't even debatable, it's a fact" claim seems to be just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

Salty? No, never, impossible. It isn't even debatable, it's a fact.
 
colton said:
Wikipedia disagrees with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_dependence
"Evidence suggests that cannabis users can develop tolerance to the effects of THC and experience withdrawal symptoms."

It's not as physically addictive as some drugs, perhaps, but your "isn't even debatable, it's a fact" claim seems to be just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

Wikapedia. The end all source of information, too bad college professors don't agree with that.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
Wikapedia. The end all source of information, too bad college professors don't agree with that.
Click to expand...

I'm a college professor, and I use Wikipedia for information all the time. You have to take it with a grain of salt, but that doesn't make it useless.
 
Stoked said:
I think it is a big stretch to say "sheltered to an extent" = amish.
Click to expand...

I probably should have stated that, to me, it kinda came off that way. Whether or not that was your intent is not mine to judge, but I only respond as I see fit. Perhaps the mistake is mine.

I was the first to point out that there opinion was no less valid then others.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct, and I should have acknowledged that. My bad.
 
I believe there are people out there who are just at high risk for developing addictions. It can be to anything, and when they are forced to stop or try to quit, they are going to suffer mental/physical withdrawals. People can have this to shopping, internet use, cellphone use, gambling, drug use, etc. Pretty much anything you can think of that we use on a daily basis, people can develop severe addiction to them because they have a predisposed weakness to addiction.

I don't believe it is anything in marijuana that triggers these withdrawal symptoms like there is in heroin and meth. It is just a self imposed mental addiction that manifest itself physically if the person has a weak will. Should rules be made to protect a small minority when the majority can handle it? I don't think so.
 
Bronco70 said:
I probably should have stated that, to me, it kinda came off that way. Whether or not that was your intent is not mine to judge, but I only respond as I see fit. Perhaps the mistake is mine.



You're absolutely correct, and I should have acknowledged that. My bad.
Click to expand...

if that is how I came off it was unintended. I think there is a level of naivete amoung the Utah LDS community on certain subjects. It maybe by choice but it is still there. But you are correct in that it in now way invalidates their opinion.

All groups have subjects about which they are naive/ignorant.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
Silly of me to think the guy who was adamantly supporting the fact that there are withdrawal symptoms to actually be able to discuss it.
Click to expand...

I had already given you the link to the Wikipedia page that was my sole source for knowledge on the subject.
 
Nate505 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So some people have tried to "define" what a physical addiction is, a rose by any other name is still the same. You cant change words and now magically the affect something has on you is different. You could not have a psychological addiction to something without a tie to something physical.

I do agree that there are many many things out there that people can and do get addicted to. I have said it before, I am addicted to this place, or I would have stopped showing up here long ago. I'm surely not here for the positive things people say to me and each other... well, maybe a tiny bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top