Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[CONAN]

However, it appears GVC is the one trying to understand where you are coming from

I disagree and so does GVC. He has already admitted he thinks my arguments are religious-based even though I haven't brought up religion. Did you not read that? Because that is not trying to understand at all.

You can't really argue that it is currently impossible to detect current marijuana impairment.

Are you sure you're reading the right posts cuz I never argued that. Salty did.

At least you are consistent in also looking down on those who legally drink alcohol.

And here we finally have it. Someone who thinks because I think something is wrong that means I look down on them. You guys are like girls with how sensitive you get. Can you guys have a discussion at all about the right or wrong about something you do without getting so emotional?

Purposely altering your brain is sad. That's not an outlandish position.

Breaking laws, chemically messing with your brain, and such are all irresponsible whether it be socially or legally.

Smoking weed affects the developing brain. GVC claims he has to beware these negative consequences.

Where is the prejudice? Where is the judgment? Where is the religion?

 

[CONAN]

You've returned with vague statements about social and chemical "issues". What are those issues?

Wait, are you claiming smoking marijuana pre-25 has no effect on the brain? Cuz I figured that was a given and so no need for details. But if you don't believe that we can go into more if you want no problem.

As for social issues you are breaking the law. That is a social issue.

These are both obvious or so I thought. Do you really believe there are no chemical or social consequences to smoking weed?

You seem to apply different standards to others than you apply to yourself.

Well like I said you've already got it all figured and are assuming much so why bother.

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).

Again, with the assuming. And now a persecution complex to go along with it. Speaking in general terms doesn't mean you are prejudiced and it's lame to just assume that from the start. You are guilty of the very behavior you are accusing me of. You're just a bitter guy with an axe to grind.

If you can reign in your agenda I got no problem going into details. But if you've already made your decision about where I'm coming from then there's really no point.

 

[GVC]

I am trying to understand where you're coming from, but you've provided nothing but baseless assertions. As I said in my last post, I can only assume prejudice. Further, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that these prejudices are cultural.

You've continually dodged everything thrown your way, been extremely condescending ("mush for brains" and the like), and then turned around and accused other people of all sorts of activities that you're far more guilty of.

meh.

 

[GVC]

Again, with the assuming.

You've offered up nothing in defense of your positions. What else do I have to go on but reasonable assumptions?

 

[GVC]

As for social issues you are breaking the law. That is a social issue.

I'd argue that if the law is unjust, it's the law that is the social problem not the person who breaks it.

 

[CONAN]

I can only assume prejudice. Further, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that these prejudices are cultural.

Your welcome to assume and stretch all you want. Doesn't make it true.

You've continually dodged everything thrown your way

Disagree.

 

[GVC]

And, I never said there were no negative side effects. I've only said that the positives far outweigh the extremely benign negatives for a great number of people. I've provided studies in this thread and others, and can provide more. I've shown a willingness to discuss the actual issues, but the opposing side has to bring something (anything...still waiting) to the table other than baseless assertions.

 

[CONAN]

I'd argue that if the law is unjust, it's the law that is the social problem not the person who breaks it.

Who decides if a law is unjust? And it is a social problem to break it whether it's unjust or not.

 

[GVC]

Your welcome to assume and stretch all you want. Doesn't make it true.

Of course not, but, again, you've given me nothing else to work with.

 

[GVC]

Who decides if a law is unjust? And it is a social problem to break it whether it's unjust or not.

So, as I've asked others, is civil disobedience ever appropriate?

 

[CONAN]

And, I never said there were no negative side effects.

I never said you haven't.

the opposing side has to bring something (anything...still waiting) to the table other than baseless assertions.

Why? We both agree there are negative side effects.

 

[CONAN]

You've offered up nothing in defense of your positions. What else do I have to go on but reasonable assumptions?

I have offered up positions. You don't respond to them or claim it was a joke when I discuss it. Your assumptions are wrong. That's why they're called assumptions.