What a stupid/idiotic and sick thing to do in the presence of young kids. One consolation.. at least it wasn't anything really nasty.. such as methamphatemines, opiates, barbiturates, ecstacy etc. etc.
What a stupid/idiotic and sick thing to do in the presence of young kids. One consolation.. at least it wasn't anything really nasty.. such as methamphatemines, opiates, barbiturates, ecstacy etc. etc.
Modern marijuana is very, very potent. It's a myth that it's not a hard drug.
Yeah, coke is an addictive drug. So what happened to your argument about marijuana ? Maybe because it is baseless?
First off, I want you to know that I support the legalization of many drugs. I don't have a problem with the fact that people use marijuana (or cocaine), but I do have a problem with people who essentially worship a substance. Marijuana users tend to be the most guilty of worshipping their drug of choice.
There are "benefits" to cocaine too: you lose weight, and can concentrate for long periods of time. Marijuana is very much addictive, and I've known plenty of people who were nothing less than addicted to marijuana. I realize that there are people in this world, many of which seem to come from California, who think marijuana is a harmless panacea. I don't doubt that marijuana can be used for medicinal purposes, but as a belief, this couldn't be further from the truth. As far as I can tell, much of the hoopla around marijuana's positive attributes stems from the extreme denial of those use it. 99% of the time, Marijuana does more harm than good, from a health perspective.
Beyond this, marijuana grown today typically has 60 times the THC of marijuana from the 70's, some types more. It has been bred and cultured to be more potent, and I think it definitely qualifies as a hard drug.
Beyond this, marijuana grown today typically has 60 times the THC of marijuana from the 70's, some types more.
Uh, no. Average THC content in US marijuana in 1975 was about 1%, 25 years ago in the early 80's it was about 3.5% and today the average is about 8%. So, no, not even close to 60 times what it was in the 70s, and only a little more than double what it was 25 years ago. See Monitoring Policy Project figures (example showing 1985-today). Apparently in the UK THC content was higher than the US during that time with averages of about 3.5-4% throughout the late 70s.
Basically all this means is that one joint today will get you as high as two joints in the UK in 1975. That's hardly a significant rise. Not that it matters, anyway, since it's just THC.
When I was fourteen we used to get our weed from the guy at the elementary school, or if we were really daring we would go to Flushing Queens and get it from even shadier people. Of course we never tried to get alcohol, because you needed an id for that. No, I'm not kidding.
I can make a chart, too. Please also refer to the "sources" section of your article. Note the groups that funded the research. Soft-scientists are whores for funding, and we need only look at what's coming from both sides of the global warming debate to verify that.
I know of people who have been mentally affected by longer-term marijuana usage. So I guess they're the exceptions, or that they decided to turn their lives around futilly. My bad. Listen, I don't have a problem with the fact that you enjoy smoking pot, but you will not be able to dig up medical evidence from multiple, reputable sources that suggests marijuana does not induce degrees of mental decay and other negative side-effects. As far as I'm concerned, when there's a lack of massively biased research, from one side or the other, I'm going to rely on conventional wisdom and personal experience. Both tell me that marijuana is not healthful. Nor is cocaine, for that matter.
As for the 60x number, it was a figure that a guy who's big into the cannibis clubs told me. I suppose he could have been inflating it for some purpose, but go figure. His actual words were "60 times stronger." giant says the THC content is 8x. All of this is hearsay, but even so it's equivalent to drinking eight beers instead of one beer -- big difference.
I can make a chart, too. Please also refer to the "sources" section of your article. Note the groups that funded the research. Soft-scientists are whores for funding, and we need only look at what's coming from both sides of the global warming debate to verify that.
Well, I can see this will go nowhere since there isn't any study for anything that will not be biased.
All I can give you is my personal observations. I don't drink anymore. I saw friends get sick, die wrapped around a tree and when my nephew died from a drunk driver I decided enough was enough. I realized that I was in the grips of an illness. One that I believe is forced upon us with advertising and cultural influences. I've dabbled in a few drugs in my life. Never hard stuff, I hate needles and pills. Of them all, marijuana has been my recreational drug of choice. I have a few hits after work just like one has a beer or a cocktail. In my life I have never had an episode or reaction with it. Nor do I need to have it.
I have seen and know people who smoke too much too. Just as I have seen others drink too much or watch too much television (video games). I think that in many instances it is the person's addictive behavior that latches them onto something. Not alway chemical, but also cultural and psychological.
As for the 60x number, it was a figure that a guy who's big into the cannibis clubs told me. I suppose he could have been inflating it for some purpose, but go figure. His actual words were "60 times stronger." giant says the THC content is 8x. All of this is hearsay, but even so it's equivalent to drinking eight beers instead of one beer -- big difference.
More THC and stronger pot are not bad things. It means less plant matter is required to get the effect. Less mass is burned. Less substance is ingested. Its very obvious when you buy weak shit compared to strong. With the good stuff, you can make small joints and get a lasting effect, if desired. Weak shit tends to leave you longing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel
Have you done coke? Cocaine is considered a "hard" drug.
Yes. My opinion on its "hardness" differs from that of the government.
Incidentally, does anyone know why there is such a marked and obvious bias and concentration in the 'anti-drug' advertising campaigns against the one particular (illegal) drug that has killed nobody directly, and has lesser psychological and physical dependencies than opiates, coke, alcohol, nicotine, speed, tranquillizers etc?
Why are the powers that be so paranoid about pot... to the extent that a related plant, industrial hemp (which doesn't get people stoned), perhaps the most versatile plant out there, is illegal for farmers to cultivate? (!!!) Considering that widespread hemp agriculture would help America's energy situation and reduce dependency on Middle East oil, as well as providing raw material numerous other products... it makes one wonder if the powers that be are:
(a) completely insane
(b) in the knowledge that its harder to sell a "hemp war" than an "oil/"terrorist" war"... or
(c) in the pockets of whatever lobbyists and corporations... etc etc...
This is yet another case of big intrusive government telling people not only what they can inhale, but also what they can and cannot grow on their farms.
When I was 16 in Chicago my friends and I had some pot and smoked up the ice cream man.
They have those trucks that play that crappy song drive around all the neighborhoods in the summer selling to all the kids. The driver as an older mexican guy who didn't speak any english and had silver teeth. But pot is good like that for transcending language boundaries. While we were in the middle of the joint- and we used to roll cheech and chongers back then cause it was shwag, a cop rolls past. So the ice cream man just starts handing us ice cream for free- like we'd paid for it. The cops rolled on. We said adios and went on to have a pretty good day eating push-up pops.
People only seem to discuss drugs in terms of addiction and potency, etc. There are opportunity costs involved with doing drugs-- what are you not doing as a result of your substance use? For pot users who smoke a great deal over time, opportunity costs start to build and often go unrecognized by the user, while those around them notice more and more. The drug also has a long term analgesic effect where heavy users lose interest in many things, including the pursuit of many of the opportunities that were within their grasp early on.
If you have enough time to get high, you have a lot of free time. Would that time be better spent helping someone out who really needs it, for instance, or is it best used to self-indulge?
We all choose... But it's folly to pretend that "lighter" drugs have less impact than "heavier." The impact quality may be different, but it's significant. Chance are, though, that if a person is unable to see the opportunity costs their use currently has, they're also unable to see and articulate the huge impact even light drugs have already had on who they are.
People only seem to discuss drugs in terms of addiction and potency, etc. There are opportunity costs involved with doing drugs-- what are you not doing as a result of your substance use? For pot users who smoke a great deal over time, opportunity costs start to build and often go unrecognized by the user, while those around them notice more and more. The drug also has a long term analgesic effect where heavy users lose interest in many things, including the pursuit of many of the opportunities that were within their grasp early on.
If you have enough time to get high, you have a lot of free time. Would that time be better spent helping someone out who really needs it, for instance, or is it best used to self-indulge?
We all choose... But it's folly to pretend that "lighter" drugs have less impact than "heavier." The impact quality may be different, but it's significant. Chance are, though, that if a person is unable to see the opportunity costs their use currently has, they're also unable to see and articulate the huge impact even light drugs have already had on who they are.
Rationalization is a strong defense mechanism.
Wow. Good one. I read, draw and generally do things that people do in their casual time. Same as what drinkers do. I'll say again, I have seen this behavior you indicate with people who can't control themselves. I have a friend who smokes constantly. He has planned and has been building a cafe for over a year. It still isn't finished. But I have seen many others who enjoy their activities and their friends just as much on a casual level. Like anything, if you lose control, you have to take stock of your self and your habit. Take this from a former drunk.
I'll buy that. Many lose themselves to things without realizing it, though.
I'm not opposed to substance use on a personal level. I just happen to work with people whose lives are derailed by it. Use, abuse, and addiction are different things for sure...
or 
or even 
Comments
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...05-25-20-10-58
Wow. This is truly appalling.
This is so wacky it sounds like a phony story... but then again, it must be true because the media said so.
This is so wacky it sounds like a phony story... but then again, it must be true because the media said so.
I don't consider it "wacky", but it is at least very uncommon.
Earth: polluted, dependant, conflicted, starving, obese, thirsting, flooding, and of course, addicted.
EDIT: I officialy deem the above sig worthy...
=Wow. This is truly appalling.
What a stupid/idiotic and sick thing to do in the presence of young kids. One consolation.. at least it wasn't anything really nasty.. such as methamphatemines, opiates, barbiturates, ecstacy etc. etc.
What a stupid/idiotic and sick thing to do in the presence of young kids. One consolation.. at least it wasn't anything really nasty.. such as methamphatemines, opiates, barbiturates, ecstacy etc. etc.
Modern marijuana is very, very potent. It's a myth that it's not a hard drug.
Modern marijuana is very, very potent. It's a myth that it's not a hard drug.
I disagree.
Have you done coke? Cocaine is considered a "hard" drug.
Yeah, coke is an addictive drug. So what happened to your argument about marijuana ? Maybe because it is baseless?
Here. Educate yourself.
Note: I do not condone the actions of this dealer. Legalize it though and that will all go away.
Yeah, coke is an addictive drug. So what happened to your argument about marijuana ? Maybe because it is baseless?
First off, I want you to know that I support the legalization of many drugs. I don't have a problem with the fact that people use marijuana (or cocaine), but I do have a problem with people who essentially worship a substance. Marijuana users tend to be the most guilty of worshipping their drug of choice.
There are "benefits" to cocaine too: you lose weight, and can concentrate for long periods of time. Marijuana is very much addictive, and I've known plenty of people who were nothing less than addicted to marijuana. I realize that there are people in this world, many of which seem to come from California, who think marijuana is a harmless panacea. I don't doubt that marijuana can be used for medicinal purposes, but as a belief, this couldn't be further from the truth. As far as I can tell, much of the hoopla around marijuana's positive attributes stems from the extreme denial of those use it. 99% of the time, Marijuana does more harm than good, from a health perspective.
Beyond this, marijuana grown today typically has 60 times the THC of marijuana from the 70's, some types more. It has been bred and cultured to be more potent, and I think it definitely qualifies as a hard drug.
Beyond this, marijuana grown today typically has 60 times the THC of marijuana from the 70's, some types more.
Uh, no. Average THC content in US marijuana in 1975 was about 1%, 25 years ago in the early 80's it was about 3.5% and today the average is about 8%. So, no, not even close to 60 times what it was in the 70s, and only a little more than double what it was 25 years ago. See Monitoring Policy Project figures (example showing 1985-today). Apparently in the UK THC content was higher than the US during that time with averages of about 3.5-4% throughout the late 70s.
Basically all this means is that one joint today will get you as high as two joints in the UK in 1975. That's hardly a significant rise. Not that it matters, anyway, since it's just THC.
Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain
I can make a chart, too. Please also refer to the "sources" section of your article. Note the groups that funded the research. Soft-scientists are whores for funding, and we need only look at what's coming from both sides of the global warming debate to verify that.
I know of people who have been mentally affected by longer-term marijuana usage. So I guess they're the exceptions, or that they decided to turn their lives around futilly. My bad. Listen, I don't have a problem with the fact that you enjoy smoking pot, but you will not be able to dig up medical evidence from multiple, reputable sources that suggests marijuana does not induce degrees of mental decay and other negative side-effects. As far as I'm concerned, when there's a lack of massively biased research, from one side or the other, I'm going to rely on conventional wisdom and personal experience. Both tell me that marijuana is not healthful. Nor is cocaine, for that matter.
As for the 60x number, it was a figure that a guy who's big into the cannibis clubs told me. I suppose he could have been inflating it for some purpose, but go figure. His actual words were "60 times stronger." giant says the THC content is 8x. All of this is hearsay, but even so it's equivalent to drinking eight beers instead of one beer -- big difference.
I can make a chart, too. Please also refer to the "sources" section of your article. Note the groups that funded the research. Soft-scientists are whores for funding, and we need only look at what's coming from both sides of the global warming debate to verify that.
Well, I can see this will go nowhere since there isn't any study for anything that will not be biased.
All I can give you is my personal observations. I don't drink anymore. I saw friends get sick, die wrapped around a tree and when my nephew died from a drunk driver I decided enough was enough. I realized that I was in the grips of an illness. One that I believe is forced upon us with advertising and cultural influences. I've dabbled in a few drugs in my life. Never hard stuff, I hate needles and pills. Of them all, marijuana has been my recreational drug of choice. I have a few hits after work just like one has a beer or a cocktail. In my life I have never had an episode or reaction with it. Nor do I need to have it.
I have seen and know people who smoke too much too. Just as I have seen others drink too much or watch too much television (video games). I think that in many instances it is the person's addictive behavior that latches them onto something. Not alway chemical, but also cultural and psychological.
But you can't argue the real benefits of hemp.
As for the 60x number, it was a figure that a guy who's big into the cannibis clubs told me. I suppose he could have been inflating it for some purpose, but go figure. His actual words were "60 times stronger." giant says the THC content is 8x. All of this is hearsay, but even so it's equivalent to drinking eight beers instead of one beer -- big difference.
More THC and stronger pot are not bad things. It means less plant matter is required to get the effect. Less mass is burned. Less substance is ingested. Its very obvious when you buy weak shit compared to strong. With the good stuff, you can make small joints and get a lasting effect, if desired. Weak shit tends to leave you longing.
Have you done coke? Cocaine is considered a "hard" drug.
Yes. My opinion on its "hardness" differs from that of the government.
Why are the powers that be so paranoid about pot... to the extent that a related plant, industrial hemp (which doesn't get people stoned), perhaps the most versatile plant out there, is illegal for farmers to cultivate? (!!!) Considering that widespread hemp agriculture would help America's energy situation and reduce dependency on Middle East oil, as well as providing raw material numerous other products... it makes one wonder if the powers that be are:
(a) completely insane
(b) in the knowledge that its harder to sell a "hemp war" than an "oil/"terrorist" war"... or
(c) in the pockets of whatever lobbyists and corporations... etc etc...
This is yet another case of big intrusive government telling people not only what they can inhale, but also what they can and cannot grow on their farms.
They have those trucks that play that crappy song drive around all the neighborhoods in the summer selling to all the kids. The driver as an older mexican guy who didn't speak any english and had silver teeth. But pot is good like that for transcending language boundaries. While we were in the middle of the joint- and we used to roll cheech and chongers back then cause it was shwag, a cop rolls past. So the ice cream man just starts handing us ice cream for free- like we'd paid for it. The cops rolled on. We said adios and went on to have a pretty good day eating push-up pops.
So I wonder if it's the same guy?
So I wonder if it's the same guy?
Or...
If you have enough time to get high, you have a lot of free time. Would that time be better spent helping someone out who really needs it, for instance, or is it best used to self-indulge?
We all choose... But it's folly to pretend that "lighter" drugs have less impact than "heavier." The impact quality may be different, but it's significant. Chance are, though, that if a person is unable to see the opportunity costs their use currently has, they're also unable to see and articulate the huge impact even light drugs have already had on who they are.
Rationalization is a strong defense mechanism.
People only seem to discuss drugs in terms of addiction and potency, etc. There are opportunity costs involved with doing drugs-- what are you not doing as a result of your substance use? For pot users who smoke a great deal over time, opportunity costs start to build and often go unrecognized by the user, while those around them notice more and more. The drug also has a long term analgesic effect where heavy users lose interest in many things, including the pursuit of many of the opportunities that were within their grasp early on.
If you have enough time to get high, you have a lot of free time. Would that time be better spent helping someone out who really needs it, for instance, or is it best used to self-indulge?
We all choose... But it's folly to pretend that "lighter" drugs have less impact than "heavier." The impact quality may be different, but it's significant. Chance are, though, that if a person is unable to see the opportunity costs their use currently has, they're also unable to see and articulate the huge impact even light drugs have already had on who they are.
Rationalization is a strong defense mechanism.
Wow. Good one. I read, draw and generally do things that people do in their casual time. Same as what drinkers do. I'll say again, I have seen this behavior you indicate with people who can't control themselves. I have a friend who smokes constantly. He has planned and has been building a cafe for over a year. It still isn't finished. But I have seen many others who enjoy their activities and their friends just as much on a casual level. Like anything, if you lose control, you have to take stock of your self and your habit. Take this from a former drunk.
I'm not opposed to substance use on a personal level. I just happen to work with people whose lives are derailed by it. Use, abuse, and addiction are different things for sure...