or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple extinguishes popular marijuana growing game 'Weed Firm' from iOS App Store
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple extinguishes popular marijuana growing game 'Weed Firm' from iOS App Store - Page 2

post #41 of 71

If some of your are so dense to see that the potential negative PR issue Apple faces of having the #1 game on the appstore being a weed-growing app, then I don't know what to say. This goes beyong your personal views on marijuana, which have absolutely nothing to do with this. Try to look at the big picture. I've smoked weed and have no issues with anyone doing so, but I'm not so childish as to not see why it would be a no-brainer for Apple to pull it. 

 

As for the developers, I have no sympathy, and they sound like childish douchebags and whiners. When you develop such an app for the appstore, you MUST know there will always be a risk. It's as if they were daring Apple to keep it up, and are absolutely gleeful it was taken down due to all the attention their bitching is generating. When it gets pulled, don't go whining on the fucking internet then sing the praises of Android, a platform where developers are finding zero success and consumers are too cheap to spend a dime. 

 

Developers are free to develop a game where you grow and sell drugs for the appstore- yet if they have a shred of insight they would realize such a game does not have a guarantee of a permanent shelf-life. 

post #42 of 71
And that from a company that was founded by couple of potheads and acid takers... Just bad Apple, just bad!
post #43 of 71

post #44 of 71

I agree poor judgement for Apple.

post #45 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post
 

If some of your are so dense to see that the potential negative PR issue Apple faces of having the #1 game on the appstore being a weed-growing app, then I don't know what to say. This goes beyong your personal views on marijuana, which have absolutely nothing to do with this. Try to look at the big picture. I've smoked weed and have no issues with anyone doing so, but I'm not so childish as to not see why it would be a no-brainer for Apple to pull it. 

 

As for the developers, I have no sympathy, and they sound like childish douchebags and whiners. When you develop such an app for the appstore, you MUST know there will always be a risk. It's as if they were daring Apple to keep it up, and are absolutely gleeful it was taken down due to all the attention their bitching is generating. When it gets pulled, don't go whining on the fucking internet then sing the praises of Android, a platform where developers are finding zero success and consumers are too cheap to spend a dime. 

 

Developers are free to develop a game where you grow and sell drugs for the appstore- yet if they have a shred of insight they would realize such a game does not have a guarantee of a permanent shelf-life. 

The developers' main complaint is not that Apple took down the app, but rather the arbitrariness of the decision. Why did Apple remove their app but leave standing the dozens of other weed apps out there? Whatever rule Apple is citing for their decision has not  been applied consistently, and there is nothing more damaging to the rule of law than a law that is inconsistently enforced.

post #46 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jume View Post

And that from a company that was founded by couple of potheads and acid takers... Just bad Apple, just bad!

Actually, if I recall correctly Wozniak is personally very strict about not using drugs.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #47 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

The App Store has plenty of apps depicting "illegal" activity, including "Grand Theft Auto." One might assume Apple got a complaint, which led to the takedown. Frankly, the rules seem a bit uneven and are randomly applied, but it is Apple's store and they ultimately make the decisions to sell whatever they want.

I'd say there's a difference between the likes of GTA and an app where the sole purpose of the app is to grow weed. There's also a stripper in it you give money to. There are strippers in GTA too but GTA is more of an open world where you have more freedom to choose what to do.

Apple has removed other apps like the following that is still on Google Play:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=poo.full

No illegal activity there, it's just distasteful. There have been apps that allow you to rate women and even self-uploaded pics where young teen girls were uploading pics of themselves nude. It's clear that Apple and Google have to remove some apps from their store and so the difficulty is where to draw the line.

The App Store is like Apple's own retail store where they sell 3rd party products. If someone asked them to stock sex toys that connected to iOS devices, they aren't likely to agree to that. There's nothing illegal in it but they don't want it associated with their brand.

Apple is always the target of criticism here and Google always gets a free pass when they ban apps from their store simply because Google is more lenient. Google took down the following app:

http://www.cnet.com/news/google-pulls-is-my-son-gay-android-app/

It's not illegal for parents to look for signs that their kids are gay but it would obviously be offensive to many people.

I would ask are the app stores worse off for not having these kind of apps in them? I'd say no so it's not really a big deal.
post #48 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

 

Yes, the feds are still against it, but eventually they will have to cave, because more and more states are going to jump on the legalization bandwagon.

 

History has shown that prohibition has the opposite effect.

 

I rather hope that federal laws always stand against things that ought to be illegal, like recreational drug abuse, even if "everyone's doing it".  If a bad idea gains popularity (even overwhelmingly so), that doesn't make it any less of a bad idea; it just means more people are making poor decisions.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post
 

 

There are no federal laws against simulated illegal activity that I am aware of. Again out of all of the illegal activity both real and simulated, the pot smokers draw the criticism.

 

I was referring specifically to the actual activity.  And I'm opposed to pot for recreational use as well as other forms of drug abuse; the article happened to be about a pot-based game.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post


What nonsense! I've seen what can happen when people stop taking their meds, and it can be disastrous! Thank god I 'm in Colorado right now!

 

What specifically  in my comments didn't make sense to you?

 

I'm not opposed to legal cannabis-based medicine.  I purposefully included the word 'recreational' to draw that exact distinction.  I'm convinced there are appropriate medical uses for lots of substances that are, sadly, widely abused by people with no justifying medical condition.  I'm aware of what can happen when people stop abusing drugs, too.  Withdrawal isn't kind to people.  I've heard a former addict describe how eventually you keep using not for the high, but to keep from feeling so sick.

post #49 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post


Yeah, I was aware of the issues with that one. Pretty special exception and while the pictures are simulated, your possession is not. Pictures of pot plants is not a problem. I'm also sure there is some really vulgar movies to compare the game too. Sounds like the game should be NC-17 or something, but not censored. They are burning their virtual books as we speak.

 

Funny thing that this article has caused so much self-reflection. I think that's a good thing. People are concerned about this because of the larger thing that it might be saying.

 

I thought more about my own comment and trying to understand why I might be uncomfortable. Apps seem so personal but if we compare them to books, movies, other *public* forms of expression then I think we need to use similar standards. I think it comes down to how you view an app. Is it a personal dialog/conversation between developer and individual who downloads it? Go ahead then. The individual can make the call. Download? Keep it? Remove? If you're horrified then were you misled into viewing it? I'd say that's not the case here.

 

I would argue that an app being available in the app store means that it's not a personal conversation. It's a public form of expression. So we should scrutinize. Is it vulgur, objectionable, questionable? (I'm staying away from questioning whether it's legal which I don't think is relevant in this case.) If so, we need some additional scrutiny.

 

I'm most shocked by the MILF. If you've played it or read about it! then you know what I'm talking about. I wonder if that's what's getting the worst of the complaints as well. Well, besides the less bothersome, to me anyway, fact that it's a weed-dealing game. If you switched it to lemonade the game is just as playable and dumb and idiotically simple. I'm not harshing on the original lemonade game on the web which is really great. Just making a point that complaints about selling weed are just silly and missing the point.

post #50 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

 

And I don't have any problems with you, if you choose not to partake. That's your choice of course. I do have problems with those who believe that they should decide what others should do and not do.

 

Same. 

 

I'm not surprised by this move by Apple. They are maintaining the image and experience of the platform, and if something is too far outside, I see no issue with them ejecting it.

 

Browser-based games are the likely eventual solution to this for developers though.

post #51 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinglesthula View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/179906/apple-extinguishes-popular-marijuana-growing-game-weed-firm-from-ios-app-store#post_2537473"]
 

Yes, the feds are still against it, but eventually they will have to cave, because more and more states are going to jump on the legalization bandwagon.

History has shown that prohibition has the opposite effect.

I rather hope that federal laws always stand against things that ought to be illegal, like recreational drug abuse, even if "everyone's doing it".  If a bad idea gains popularity (even overwhelmingly so), that doesn't make it any less of a bad idea; it just means more people are making poor decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

 

There are no federal laws against simulated illegal activity that I am aware of. Again out of all of the illegal activity both real and simulated, the pot smokers draw the criticism.

I was referring specifically to the actual activity.  And I'm opposed to pot for recreational use as well as other forms of drug abuse; the article happened to be about a pot-based game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

What nonsense! I've seen what can happen when people stop taking their meds, and it can be disastrous! Thank god I 'm in Colorado right now!

What specifically  in my comments didn't make sense to you?

I'm not opposed to legal cannabis-based medicine.  I purposefully included the word 'recreational' to draw that exact distinction.  I'm convinced there are appropriate medical uses for lots of substances that are, sadly, widely abused by people with no justifying medical condition.  I'm aware of what can happen when people stop abusing drugs, too.  Withdrawal isn't kind to people.  I've heard a former addict describe how eventually you keep using not for the high, but to keep from feeling so sick.

Calling it recreational drug "abuse" just highlights your bias and shows your lack of understanding.
post #52 of 71
Siding with Manitoba on this one.

Would never play that, but Apple has let (and advertised) freaking Rockstar's games where you kill, maim, and sell drugs. Oh, and steal tanks, a clearly legal activity. Double standards for bigger companies suck.

Also, I hope the game is still playable anywhere weed is legal, right? Else it is utter censorship and likely illegal from Apple. Curious how this will pan out, but hoping Apple relents.

Why is it so important? Imagine a dystopian Mississippi, in 1823. Apple removes app for simulating black people acting as equals to white people. Seems shocking to me. Censorship is bad and dangerous.
Edited by lightknight - 5/22/14 at 2:38pm

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #53 of 71
Never liked that conservative side of Apple, noticed it when working there too (not with weed). Although there were times back in the day. I remember when it was not uncommon for people to smoke weed at the Cupertino campus, last time that I remember being in 1993- someone smoking in the bathroom in Mariani One caused a minor stir, something that Rock and Roll team members will surely remember. Ah, the good ole days. After Jobs returned there was no smoking of any kind on campus.
post #54 of 71
Originally Posted by appleempl View Post
After Jobs returned there was no smoking of any kind on campus.

 

So it seems, unlike what some think, Steve Jobs WOULD never have…

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #55 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleempl View Post

After Jobs returned there was no smoking of any kind on campus.

Good for Jobs.
“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
Reply
“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
Reply
post #56 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

At least you are likening smoking Pot to other irresponsible acts.

I'm all for the legalization, but you can see where people see a slippery slope about the "adults should be able to decide for themselves" argument.  That argument is an empty one because there are hundreds of things you support the government ban on and you don't even know it.  Heroin?  Lead in paint?  Asbestos?  Why not keep the lead in paint and let the consumer decide if they should use it or not.  That's your similar argument.  The way this country is setup- we vote for the politicians to represent us and then they vote on the issues that we want as our representatives.  If that's legalizing weed, then thats how they should vote.  If its banning asbestos- then thats how they should vote.  Unless I overlooked our constitutional right of "you have the right to get high". Yes- it's flawed, we don't need to get into that sidebar.  But it's less flawed than "adults should be able to decide for themselves".  That's called anarchy.

It's not anarchy... The difference is that bullshit laws like marijuana prohibition make criminal, activities that were not directly affecting anyone else but the user --- so called victimless crimes (along with prostitution and others... Drug use being only one example)
Anarchy would be no law and order (or government) whatsoever. What I am advocating is "freedom". Freedom to do what you please as long as you are only affecting yourself.
Lead paint, asbestos, etc are illegal because it affects everyone that comes into contact with it, not just the individual who purchased it.
post #57 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

Calling it recreational drug "abuse" just highlights your bias and shows your lack of understanding.

Bias is a partiality that prevents someone from objectively considering an issue. My understanding of the nature and effects of substance abuse is based on objectively observing what medical and social researchers say about the topic, and by noting the effects on people I am (or were) acquainted with, and from common sense.
post #58 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinglesthula View Post

Bias is a partiality that prevents someone from objectively considering an issue. My understanding of the nature and effects of substance abuse is based on objectively observing what medical and social researchers say about the topic, and by noting the effects on people I am (or were) acquainted with, and from common sense.

You are missing the point. I think everyone would agree that "substance abuse" exists and is what the majority of addicts are doing. However, to claim that all recreational users are "abusing" a particular substance is ludicrous. The entire term "substance abuse" is a politically loaded one, created by the drug war with the misguided notion that all drug use is "immoral".
Attitudes like yours are part of the problem today. All of the black and white, absolutist anti-drug propaganda kids are taught leads them astray when they realize that drug use --- like all things in life --- is full of subtlety and complexity (true addiction, recreational users, medical marijuana, opiates for legitimate pain, students and professional using stimulants to get ahead, hallucinogens used in religious ceremonies, etc )
post #59 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinglesthula View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

Calling it recreational drug "abuse" just highlights your bias and shows your lack of understanding.

Bias is a partiality that prevents someone from objectively considering an issue. My understanding of the nature and effects of substance abuse is based on objectively observing what medical and social researchers say about the topic, and by noting the effects on people I am (or were) acquainted with, and from common sense.

If you don't see a difference between drug use and drug abuse, you have a significant bias.
post #60 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

 
Nothing against weed smokers- go for it.  But I'd rather not smoke weed unless I get a painful disease of some sort.

And I don't have any problems with you, if you choose not to partake. That's your choice of course. I do have problems with those who believe that they should decide what others should do and not do.

You're happy for other people to murder each other. Got it.
“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
Reply
“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
Reply
post #61 of 71
Seems to me that Manitoba should take a leaf out of Nicki Minaj's 'Stupid Hoe.' Just as Minaj vented her spleen at her gardening equipment, so should Manitoba at their App Store rejection of their weeding game in the form of a song: 'Stupid Weed.'

Edit: or maybe 'Troublesome Trowel.'
Edited by Benjamin Frost - 5/26/14 at 3:27am
“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
Reply
“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
Reply
post #62 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

You're happy for other people to murder each other. Got it.

That is an incredibly tenuous argument... Smoking pot only affects the user. Individual rights end when they impact others individual rights, which is why murder is illegal.
post #63 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

You're happy for other people to murder each other. Got it.

That is an incredibly tenuous argument... Smoking pot only affects the user. Individual rights end when they impact others individual rights, which is why murder is illegal.

Tell that to the families who see the lives of their loved ones destroyed by addiction.
“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
Reply
“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
Reply
post #64 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Tell that to the families who see the lives of their loved ones destroyed by addiction.

First of all, as someone who has personally experienced addiction and chemical dependency first-hand, I am well aware of the impacts that it has on families, friends, and colleagues of the affected individual.

Secondly, we are talking about Marijuana, not opiates, coke or meth. While there are people who take it too far and smoke weed every day, "marijuana addiction" is not the same as addiction to harder drugs. I'm sure it effects the individuals life and those around them, but it's not in the same league. How many people have robbed a liquor store or stabbed someone on the street to get money to buy a bag of weed? Zero.

Lastly, if society was going to judge whether a particular chemical/plant should be legal based on it's addiction potential, then alcohol should certainly be outlawed. Do you support that myopic idea as well?

While I don't use it myself, I'd much rather see people enjoy the occasional joint then get hammered on liquor at the local bar. Stoned people don't physically assault people, fall out of windows, burn down houses with lit cigarettes, beat their wives and children, choke on their own vomit, die of substance poisoning, get in cars and drive the wrong way on the freeway, etc. It is altogether a much more pleasant intoxicant for the people that have to be around those who do it.
post #65 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

How many people have robbed a liquor store or stabbed someone on the street to get money to buy a bag of weed? Zero.

Lastly, if society was going to judge whether a particular chemical/plant should be legal based on it's addiction potential, then alcohol should certainly be outlawed. Do you support that myopic idea as well?

 

Marijuana as currently produced in a lot of cases does involve criminal networks that are often also involved in significant criminal activity and harder drugs. The networks themselves engage in pretty hardcore criminal activity, including murder, bribery, etc.  

 

Weed grown in commercial, non-criminal conditions is fine. 

 

I agree with you that weed should be treated the same as alcohol. Probably other drugs should be treated the same way, too, though there are always likely to be drugs that are so damaging that we wouldn't be willing to license commercial production -- but that people would still want, so the criminal networks are likely to survive anyway. 

 

Personally I think we'd better off without any of them, but I know I'm fighting a losing battle there -- and prohibition is unworkable.

post #66 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post

Marijuana as currently produced in a lot of cases does involve criminal networks that are often also involved in significant criminal activity and harder drugs. The networks themselves engage in pretty hardcore criminal activity, including murder, bribery, etc.  

Weed grown in commercial, non-criminal conditions is fine. 

I agree with you that weed should be treated the same as alcohol. Probably other drugs should be treated the same way, too, though there are always likely to be drugs that are so damaging that we wouldn't be willing to license commercial production -- but that people would still want, so the criminal networks are likely to survive anyway. 

Personally I think we'd better off without any of them, but I know I'm fighting a losing battle there -- and prohibition is unworkable.

Probably too obvious to point out, but the criminal networks you speak of were created by drug prohibition.

I am very conflicted on legalization of all drugs. As someone who has seen and experienced prescription addiction first hand, I wish that my children lived in a world where the temptations of heroin, OxyContin, meth, adderal, coke, etc didn't exist. However, that is not reality. Whether all substances are legalized and commercially produced or not, people who find themselves in the throes of addiction need psychological treatment... Turning them into criminals and putting them in jail for the victimless crime of drug possession only exacerbates their problems and doesn't help them clean up --- hence all the alternative drug courts and forced inpatient treatment. That is a good trend we are starting to see as the failed "drug war" is finally starting to crack.

Similarly, while the commercial sale of such dangerous substances seems fraught with problems for society, I'm not convinced it would be any worse than the dangerous criminal gangs that manufacture and distribute the substances today. Certainly prohibition itself is responsible for an untold amount of violence, murder, and criminal activity. Likewise, the high street value causes addicts to become thieves and commit fraud, forgery, robbery, burglary, etc to pay for the habit when the same drug would be many orders of Magnitude cheaper if sale was brought out of the shadows ...
post #67 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post

Marijuana as currently produced in a lot of cases does involve criminal networks that are often also involved in significant criminal activity and harder drugs. The networks themselves engage in pretty hardcore criminal activity, including murder, bribery, etc.  

Weed grown in commercial, non-criminal conditions is fine. 

I agree with you that weed should be treated the same as alcohol. Probably other drugs should be treated the same way, too, though there are always likely to be drugs that are so damaging that we wouldn't be willing to license commercial production -- but that people would still want, so the criminal networks are likely to survive anyway. 

Personally I think we'd better off without any of them, but I know I'm fighting a losing battle there -- and prohibition is unworkable.

Probably too obvious to point out, but the criminal networks you speak of were created by drug prohibition.

I am very conflicted on legalization of all drugs. As someone who has seen and experienced prescription addiction first hand, I wish that my children lived in a world where the temptations of heroin, OxyContin, meth, adderal, coke, etc didn't exist. However, that is not reality. Whether all substances are legalized and commercially produced or not, people who find themselves in the throes of addiction need psychological treatment... Turning them into criminals and putting them in jail for the victimless crime of drug possession only exacerbates their problems and doesn't help them clean up --- hence all the alternative drug courts and forced inpatient treatment. That is a good trend we are starting to see as the failed "drug war" is finally starting to crack.

Problem is, you can't put drugs on a pedestal. You're deluded if you think that all drugs-related crime will vanish if you legalise drugs. It won't. They are one part of the criminal ecosystem. What you will do if you legalise drugs is increase the rate of addiction. Alcohol has its dangers too, which is why there are controls and restrictions. However, it is not as addictive as illegal drugs, and is much less dangerous when consumed in moderation. There is no such thing as moderation with weed, never mind heroin.
“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
Reply
“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
Reply
post #68 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Problem is, you can't put drugs on a pedestal. You're deluded if you think that all drugs-related crime will vanish if you legalise drugs. It won't. They are one part of the criminal ecosystem. What you will do if you legalise drugs is increase the rate of addiction. Alcohol has its dangers too, which is why there are controls and restrictions. However, it is not as addictive as illegal drugs, and is much less dangerous when consumed in moderation. There is no such thing as moderation with weed, never mind heroin.

Your post is full of misinformation, so please don't insult me.
First of all, If you comprehended the point of my post, you would see that I am not "putting drugs on a pedestal", I just recognize that the current strategy for dealing with them is a failure.
Secondly, no, of course I do not think "all" drug related crime would go away with legalization... However, it doesn't require a high IQ to recognize that removing the hundreds of billions of dollars in black market profits that are being funneled to criminals (while also vastly reducing the price of the substances themselves) will reduce criminal activity and crime to some degree. This has already been shown with alcohol prohibition. Prohibition literally created organized crime in this country, and after the repeal, crime rates surrounding alcohol plummeted. That's a fact.

Next, your suggestion that legalization creates more addiction is just plain false. I don't have the time to go find links to the studies I have in mind, but google is your friend. Other countries have had moderate success with decriminalizing and even legalizing certain drugs, and rates of use and addiction actually dropped by a marginal amount.

Finally, your "stated fact" that alcohol is less addictive and "much less dangerous" than all
Illegal drugs is laughable. How many people have died due solely to alcohol? How many people are killed by DUI drivers each year? How many individuals suffer domestic violence brought on by alcohol? How many people have died of overdose or liver failure? Alcohol is terrible if you are looking solely at how people are harmed by it. Sure, it's not nearly as bad as meth or heroin, but all drugs are not equal and is incredibly ignorant to lump them all together.
Marijuana is demonstratably a far safer intoxicant than alcohol based on health risks, risk of injury or death, etc. It's not entirely safe or healthy in any way, but that's not the argument.

Based on how this disastrous drug war always seems to continue despite the obvious failings, it's clear that there are a lot of people like yourself, with anachronistic attitudes about drugs and addiction. It's unfortunate, because while you think you know what is right, it's caused an incredibly amount of strife in society.
post #69 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post


If you don't see a difference between drug use and drug abuse, you have a significant bias.

 

Abuse is using something to bad effect, or for a bad purpose, or misusing it (using the wrong way or for the wrong purpose).

 

Using cannabinoids to treat something like chronic seizures would, I think, be putting it to good use.

'Getting high' on pot is substance abuse.

 

So, I do see a difference.  If you don't see a difference between treating a medical condition and getting high (viewing them as equally acceptable), then it may be you who, based on your comment, has the bias.  I don't say that to be personally demeaning; rather, I think you're spot on in that in discussing a subject like this that it's important to be aware of bias.  And who knows - perhaps I do have bias I haven't fully identified and come to terms with.  I certainly try to be objective when considering such matters.

 

As for the 'bad purpose', 'wrong way', and 'wrong purpose' I think it doesn't take much googling to locate enough of what research has turned up on the negative effects of smoking pot to make a good case for identifying recreational use as abuse.  I can say what impression and opinion I have based on what I've observed over the years, though I'm hardly the right person to lay out the details of said case well enough to convince all who may read my internet-forum-post-quality comments that I'm just So So Right TM.  But I do think that sometimes people allow a 'just let people have fun as long as they don't hurt anyone else' attitude hinder their objectivity in considering the subject of drugs.

post #70 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinglesthula View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

If you don't see a difference between drug use and drug abuse, you have a significant bias.

Abuse is using something to bad effect, or for a bad purpose, or misusing it (using the wrong way or for the wrong purpose).

Using cannabinoids to treat something like chronic seizures would, I think, be putting it to good use.
'Getting high' on pot is substance abuse.

So, I do see a difference.  If you don't see a difference between treating a medical condition and getting high (viewing them as equally acceptable), then it may be you who, based on your comment, has the bias.  I don't say that to be personally demeaning; rather, I think you're spot on in that in discussing a subject like this that it's important to be aware of bias.  And who knows - perhaps I do have bias I haven't fully identified and come to terms with.  I certainly try to be objective when considering such matters.

As for the 'bad purpose', 'wrong way', and 'wrong purpose' I think it doesn't take much googling to locate enough of what research has turned up on the negative effects of smoking pot to make a good case for identifying recreational use as abuse.  I can say what impression and opinion I have based on what I've observed over the years, though I'm hardly the right person to lay out the details of said case well enough to convince all who may read my internet-forum-post-quality comments that I'm just So So Right TM.  But I do think that sometimes people allow a 'just let people have fun as long as they don't hurt anyone else' attitude hinder their objectivity in considering the subject of drugs.

Your definition just doesn't leave any room for recreational use as it would be abuse. Your view seems to translate to all alcohol use as being abuse because it isn't medicinal in nature. It's your valid opinion, but we just disagree. No harm there. I have certainly seen both being abused and both being used.
post #71 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinglesthula View Post

Abuse is using something to bad effect, or for a bad purpose, or misusing it (using the wrong way or for the wrong purpose).

Using cannabinoids to treat something like chronic seizures would, I think, be putting it to good use.
'Getting high' on pot is substance abuse.

So, I do see a difference.  If you don't see a difference between treating a medical condition and getting high (viewing them as equally acceptable), then it may be you who, based on your comment, has the bias.  I don't say that to be personally demeaning; rather, I think you're spot on in that in discussing a subject like this that it's important to be aware of bias.  And who knows - perhaps I do have bias I haven't fully identified and come to terms with.  I certainly try to be objective when considering such matters.

As for the 'bad purpose', 'wrong way', and 'wrong purpose' I think it doesn't take much googling to locate enough of what research has turned up on the negative effects of smoking pot to make a good case for identifying recreational use as abuse.  I can say what impression and opinion I have based on what I've observed over the years, though I'm hardly the right person to lay out the details of said case well enough to convince all who may read my internet-forum-post-quality comments that I'm just So So Right TM.  But I do think that sometimes people allow a 'just let people have fun as long as they don't hurt anyone else' attitude hinder their objectivity in considering the subject of drugs.



"As for the 'bad purpose', 'wrong way', and 'wrong purpose' I think it doesn't take much googling to locate enough of what research has turned up on the negative effects of smoking pot to make a good case for identifying recreational use as abuse. "

Considering alcohol has many, many negative side effects (addictive, kills brain cells, causes dehydration, hard on your liver, poisonous is large amounts, leads people to injure or kill themselves accidentally) do you then consider drinkers to be "abusing" alcohol? Or is it just marijuana that fits your biased perspective?

No one is equating using marijuana for medical use and using it to get high as equivalent. But I am arguing that using marijuana recreationally to relax, is no more or less an "abuse" as the millions of people who use alcohol for the very same purpose at the end of the day.

The fact that you attribute any recreational use of marijuana as "the wrong way/bad purpose" shows your bias..
But we can agree to disagree
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple extinguishes popular marijuana growing game 'Weed Firm' from iOS App Store
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple extinguishes popular marijuana growing game 'Weed Firm' from iOS App Store