Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
I don't disagree. Just looking at the pic below I can easily see Spice is scary and needs to be banned.
We're saved! Spice is being outlawed, you know, for the kids.
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I don't care who you are, that's funny. +2.
I smoked about 6 ounces of this stuff last weekend just to give the hype a try. I did not notice any effects at all. I had drank a few beers before smoking this business. It tasted like really ****** schwag to me with less effect. My friend who smoked as much as I had, who has never smoked weed before, said he felt messed up but I think he is just a ***** and pretending.
On a side note the amount of time and money the government puts into stopping people from smoking weed and now potentially into some herb is a joke. It might make more people not do it but its not stopping it and it makes people like me curious about it. The biggest thing it does is drive the price of the product way up, which has way worse effects on society. Keep it away from kids, educate people about its bad effects and let adults make their own decisions. If their decisions harm the public or anyone besides them punish them like no tomorrow.
On a side note the amount of time and money the government puts into stopping people from smoking weed and now potentially into some herb is a joke. It might make more people not do it but its not stopping it and it makes people like me curious about it. The biggest thing it does is drive the price of the product way up, which has way worse effects on society. Keep it away from kids, educate people about its bad effects and let adults make their own decisions. If their decisions harm the public or anyone besides them punish them like no tomorrow.
I'm going to stick with my assertion that usage would not significantly increase. I'm speculating, of course, but so is anyone else who levies an opinion. I think the difference between obtaining alcohol during prohibition, and obtaining marijuana today is substantial. Getting weed is ridiculously easy. Bottles of whiskey couldn't be dealt on any street corner, and shoved into your pants pocket. I believe a lot of folks who otherwise would have imbibed, didn't (during prohibition) simply because of the risk and difficulty. These are almost no obstacle to the pot smoker. Risk is very low. That's why I think that those who would partake, mostly already do.
You missed my point, Archie. I'm pretty sure that definition 3 is a recent thing, instituted just because people used the word incorrectly. To be specific, I'm nearly certain that when I was in high school biology (we had a unit on drugs) marijuana was specifically NOT in the narcotic category.
On the other hand, I could be wrong. It's happened once or twice. ;-)
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
It would be interesting to know the percentage of English words that are used incorrectly according to their "original" definition then, wouldn't it? I bet we would be surprised.
The problem with what you are saying is that Marijuana fits definitions 1, 2 and 3. Marijuana is used medically to relieve pain but are sometimes taken for their pleasant effects.
I don't really have as strong of feelings on this as the thread would lead you to believe, but...
What I learned, and what this site at least bears out https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/narcotic, is that medically speaking "narcotics" refer to opium-related compounds. Which marijuana is not.
As a professor think about this: how did your college prof measure the amount of drinking that was occurring during Prohibition? Did he look at receipts?
In any event, my post was really saying the lesson was:
a) Its use was never actually eliminated. In effect the ban only hurt the middle class because there were carve-outs in the enabling legislation that effectively kept hard cider legal (for the poor folks) and rich people had no problem purchasing alcohol at the inflated prices with little fear of detection. This was especially true because "medical liquor" was also exempted (sound familiar?) and priests had no problem with access to alcohol because "sacramental wine" was also exempted;
b) an entire shadow economy grew up under the ban that produced all kinds of violence and fueled organized crime. There's a reason that the Prohibition era is also the golden age of mobsters.
In sum: the lesson of the prohibition era is that banning a substance doesn't neatly eliminate the effect of that substance's existence. Instead you get a substantial discount on the positive effects and introduce a whole extra set of negative ones.
If you want to use a definition where methamphetamine, cocaine, and tax-free cigarettes are narcotics, than I agree marijuana would fit in that category. I was referring to the medical definition.
Why, how kind of you to say that. Thank you.