Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[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.

 

[Nate505]

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.

This is why I hesitated to mention my own use, because people like you are incapable of providing your opinion without putting some sort of slur at the end of it. Not that your reasoning abilities are very impressive in the first place, so I do understand why you have to resort to it.

 

[GVC]

And this is why it's so hard to keep cool about this topic at times; for doing nothing more than consuming something that helps us feel better about ourselves, those around us and the world at large, we're labeled as stupid, lazy, pot head criminals, completely undeserving of any and all sympathy.

****.

 

[CONAN]

Yes, there is a point where driving becomes impaired if you drive to fast.

You are talking out of context. I have not been talking about alcohol or anything else. I am talking about driving while high and that is it. And your rebuttal was that there is some speed you drive while high that makes you impaired. And driving slower while high suddenly makes you unimpaired. So sorry you're wrong. And funny you call me a troll because I asked someone who knows you to describe what you look like and they said "a troll".

And now you are trying to go with the "weed slows you down" so potheads drive safe cuz they are slow. That's pretty stupid even for you. First off, it's not the same for everyone. Second, there are a myriad of other effects besides slowing you down. Surprisingly you have not addressed those.

And you're also using the reasoning that only potheads are qualified to talk about pot. Another moronic line from a troll.

Apparently, weed makes everyone into superman. Even trolls.

You're still dumb.

 

[CONAN]

Potheads cry a lot.