Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[GVC]

I guess what I'm looking for are definitions of the words "wrong" and "irresponsible". You seem to just use these words in place of your own prejudices.

 

[GVC]

I disagree.

Just because? I want to get into the religious side because I know that's what you're basing this on.

I'm certain I've read more studies on this than you have, and have a lot more experience with the drug than you do. I know what it does and doesn't do.

 

[CONAN]

I guess what I'm looking for are definitions of the words "wrong" and "irresponsible". You seem to just use these words in place of your own prejudices.

You seem to have and agenda and have already passed judgement. If that's not the case then sorry. I've answered your questions and you don't keep the discussion going. You just change tactics. Whatever.

 

[CONAN]

Just because? I want to get into the religious side because I know that's what you're basing this on.

I'm certain I've read more studies on this than you have, and have a lot more experience with the drug than you do. I know what it does and doesn't do.

Like I said you've got an agenda (surprise) and you're not really looking to discuss here. You just want to get to where you want this discussion to go. That's why your blowing off legal ramificaitons, chemical issues, and social issues. You just want to talk religion want to put all my arguments into the religion category. Lame tactics.

If you know where I'm coming from and you know so much more anyway then just agree to disagree. You're obviously not going to have a fair discussion here as it's clear you keep trying to steer everything toward religion even though I am not. You're weird.

 

[GVC]

Look, you're just tossing out the words "irresponsible", "sad", "pathetic" and "wrong" without any justification AT ALL. I'm trying to understand what the justification is. How do you define those terms, and how do they apply to cannabis use?

You talk in vague generalities about chemical and social "issues". What are those issues? You've not actually mentioned a single one, as far as I can tell.

 

[CONAN]

Look, you're just tossing out the words "irresponsible", "sad", "pathetic" and "wrong" without any justification AT ALL. I'm trying to understand what the justification is. How do you define those terms, and how do they apply to cannabis use?

You talk in vague generalities about chemical and social "issues". What are those issues? You've not actually mentioned a single one, as far as I can tell.

I don't think that's true. I think I've explained plenty you just are reading what you want to read and are just itching to jump on religion and prejudice.

But fine let's talk about being responsible. Let's look at a statement you made and my response. You said "I'm ready to take on the consequences, which would indicate responsible behavior." To which I countered "I don't think it indicates that. If you want to murder someone and are ok with the consequences that doesn't mean your behavior is responsible."

You failed to respond to my response (at least that I saw). I think it's safe to say that your theory of being ready and willing to take on consequences does not indicate responsible behavior. Unless your belief doesn't transfer to murder.

 

[CONAN]

Look, you're just tossing out the words "irresponsible", "sad", "pathetic" and "wrong" without any justification AT ALL.

And you're just tossing out the words "prejudice" and "religion" without any justification AT ALL.

 

[Agoxlea]

Like I said you've got an agenda (surprise) and you're not really looking to discuss here. You just want to get to where you want this discussion to go. That's why your blowing off legal ramificaitons, chemical issues, and social issues. You just want to talk religion want to put all my arguments into the religion category. Lame tactics.

If you know where I'm coming from and you know so much more anyway then just agree to disagree. You're obviously not going to have a fair discussion here as it's clear you keep trying to steer everything toward religion even though I am not. You're weird.

I've been following this thread, but haven't really felt the need to chime in much so far. However, it appears GVC is the one trying to understand where you are coming from while you keep dodging questions, making ad hominem attacks, and contradicting yourself.

I think everyone here agrees that driving high is worse than driving stone cold sober, but there are clearly differing opinions on the legality of that driving. With the lack of an accurate test for current impairment, or even reasonable criteria to measure which drivers are dangerous I happen to think that most high driving should be tolerated. Obviously reckless and unsafe driving are already illegal and I am in agreement with Salty that it wouldn't become a public safety issue. You can't really argue that it is currently impossible to detect current marijuana impairment. You can, however, like both Trout, GVC, and many other disagree with me on whether the number of people driving would increase traffic injuries/fatalities.

Everything else you have argued have been purely value judgments. You haven't any evidence to support your claims, and have ignored any evidence to the contrary. You are hiding behind the fact that in your mind society hates weed and because of that you don't need evidence of any actual problems with it, let alone enough to outweigh its benefits and justify its illegality. At least you are consistent in also looking down on those who legally drink alcohol.

I just wanted to point out this little gem:

GVC's intelligence isn't at issue here.

So you meant no offense saying anyone who smokes weed is an irresponsible sad case who has mush for brains. Got it.

No, I'm still rolling with that generally speaking.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that to you his intelligence is still very much an issue. You have no basis to think that of someone who is clearly very intelligent other than value judgments made from your own moral pedestal. I disagree with some of the stuff trout has been arguing here, but he isn't attacking anyone. You are making attacks and then claiming otherwise.

 

[Nate505]

It is also hit and miss. Sometimes it is the most potent **** around, other times it will just have you sitting there bawling like a baby. It also tends to produce very erratic highs along with copious amounts of aggravation.

Hahaha, that's damn funny.

 

[GVC]

I don't think that's true. I think I've explained plenty you just are reading what you want to read and are just itching to jump on religion and prejudice.

You've explained nothing. I'm willing to discuss the merits of cannabis with you. I, and many others in this thread, have stated how cannabis has positively affected our lives. You've returned with vague statements about social and chemical "issues". What are those issues? I think you'll find that a lot of the early studies on cannabis and its effects are extremely misleading (or worse), and that studies conducted since decriminalization and medicinal regimes have taken hold (that is, since it's been possible to do more rigorous studies) discredit a lot of these earlier studies. The most glaring example of this being the commonly held notion (and the "study" that backed it up) that marijuana kills brain cells.

But fine let's talk about being responsible. Let's look at a statement you made and my response. You said "I'm ready to take on the consequences, which would indicate responsible behavior." To which I countered "I don't think it indicates that. If you want to murder someone and are ok with the consequences that doesn't mean your behavior is responsible."

You failed to respond to my response (at least that I saw). I think it's safe to say that your theory of being ready and willing to take on consequences does not indicate responsible behavior. Unless your belief doesn't transfer to murder.

I was merely using your previous definition of responsible behavior (per your statement about knowing the consequences when you skirt the law). You seem to have missed that. You seem to apply different standards to others than you apply to yourself.

I don't think that standard of responsible behavior holds up to even modest scrutiny, as you've pointed out.

And you're just tossing out the words "prejudice" and "religion" without any justification AT ALL.

When someone makes assertions like "drugs are bad", "doing drugs is wrong/pathetic/sad", "altering your mind is bad", "those who do drugs are irresponsible", "those who do drugs have mush for brains" without providing ANY justification for those assertions, despite repeatedly requests for said justification, I can only assume that you've come to those conclusions based exclusive on personal prejudice. Further, as is the case with many, I assume that these prejudices are born out of your culture (religion). I think I gave you the benefit of the doubt long enough (something you haven't been willing to give me from the very start).

If there are reasons- these social and chemical "issues"- I'm open to discuss them.

 

[GVC]

And, again, here's a link to a very good website with a pretty comprehensive collection of links to academic studies on cannabis and its effects:

https://grannystormcrowslist.webs.com/apps/forums/

Yes, the old lady who maintains the site is a consumer of cannabis, but the studies are from a variety of peer-reviewed journals, and include NIH (National Institute of Health) studies.

 

[TroutBum]

I disagree with some of the stuff trout has been arguing here, but he isn't attacking anyone. You are making attacks and then claiming otherwise.

First of all, shame on you for not agreeing with me. You'll come around in the end, but why torture yourself until then?

Secondly, I most certainly have been attacking. Perhaps I need to try harder. Jerk face.