Weed VS Alcohol

[pirana 0]

Quote

I am doing a report on the legalization of marijuana, so this topic caught my eye. There is lots of misinformation in the links on this page, including one which I thought was pretty big. Marijuana, for sure, does create issues for late teens/young adults. It affects their development, mostly maturity and ability to handle social problems. I am a victim, along with many friends and I know many others. This happens because Marijuana makes you care less about getting things done, and makes you "ok" with situations which maybe you can improve. Getting out of high school and starting your life, while being a heavy smoker, makes it much much harder.

A summary of my report is going to be along these lines:

I am against legalization.
I support officers having access to mouth swabs, to determine if a driver is high.
I want reduced criminal penalties, (possession of 1oz or less is not criminal) but higher fines (maybe 3 fines at $1,000-$3,000-$6,000) or something and further possession charges would require community service.
Possession of large quantities or intent to sell would still be a misdemeanor.
Possession of less than 8oz, as well as less than 2 or 3 mature plants, IN THE HOME, would NOT be a crime.
Being high in public would not be a crime, unless operating a car or being dangerous to others.

My whole theme with this, is that I want people to grow small amounts of weed and smoke in their own homes. What they do there is their business. If they bring it outside their homes, or sell/buy it, then they should be punished. I am also very against driving while high.
Anyways, what do you guys think?

Maybe a good half-way measure; but it seems silly to say it's OK to grow it, and smoke it at home, but let's not legalize it.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Coreece 190]

Pot is great.....

but this is the truth for most users:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxz2m7BFBrU

EDIT
Listen to the whole dam song......

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/
here is a site that you may find interesting.

On first glance, I'd say the dependence and tolerance to alcohol are understated.

For me the question is, why not learn to live life on life's terms?

I used mood altering chemicals from age 16 to almost 41. I have been straight, clean and sober the past 27 years. The first phase was existing; the last phase was living.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Does one smoke 20 joints? I thought the norm was substantially lower than that.

During the mid to late 70's in Taos, NM, I'd say the average community use was around 12 to 15 per day.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

6. There has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker...

I have no issues with 99% of what they have on the site, but that line is pure BS. I'm not saying weed causes cancer, but I doubt they did much checking on that stat. Hell, I had an aunt who never smoked anything and she died of lung cancer.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume you didn't read that entire section because they fully explain how and why they came to that conclusion.

Do you know what the term "did not reach statistical significance" means?
The statement I quoted speaks for itself and is a silly...make that stupid...conclusion. It insinuates that marijuana is some kind of miracle substance that prvents you from getting lung cancer.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[okalb 104]

Quote

For me the question is, why not learn to live life on life's terms?

I used mood altering chemicals from age 16 to almost 41. I have been straight, clean and sober the past 27 years. The first phase was existing; the last phase was living.

From reading past posts of yours I would argue that this statement is complete and utter crap. You have just replaced mood altering chemicals with mood altering religion. I have no problem with that, but don't try to pretend that your extreme religious beliefs are anything more than a different drug of choice. They are no different. You are not living any differently. You just choose to look to an invisible friend for your high instead of chemicals. You still end up in pretty much the same place. Again, I have no problem with that other than your attitude that in some way your drug makes you superior and everyone who chooses to use some other form of mood altering substance has a problem. There are many who believe that your particular affliction causes more pain and suffering than all the pot and alcohol combined.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

For me the question is, why not learn to live life on life's terms?

I used mood altering chemicals from age 16 to almost 41. I have been straight, clean and sober the past 27 years. The first phase was existing; the last phase was living.

From reading past posts of yours I would argue that this statement is complete and utter crap. You have just replaced mood altering chemicals with mood altering religion. I have no problem with that, but don't try to pretend that your extreme religious beliefs are anything more than a different drug of choice. They are no different. You are not living any differently. You just choose to look to an invisible friend for your high instead of chemicals. You still end up in pretty much the same place. Again, I have no problem with that other than your attitude that in some way your drug makes you superior and everyone who chooses to use some other form of mood altering substance has a problem. There are many who believe that your particular affliction causes more pain and suffering than all the pot and alcohol combined.

Do you think chemical dependency and addiction is a better way to go through life? Have you ever gone one full year of your adult life without using a mood altering chemical? It is not easy, try it.

Jesus is the ultimate crutch. He gives instead of takes.

I am in no way superior to anyone. I just found the path out of the woods and I like to share the directions.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

For me the question is, why not learn to live life on life's terms?

I used mood altering chemicals from age 16 to almost 41. I have been straight, clean and sober the past 27 years. The first phase was existing; the last phase was living.

From reading past posts of yours I would argue that this statement is complete and utter crap. You have just replaced mood altering chemicals with mood altering religion. I have no problem with that, but don't try to pretend that your extreme religious beliefs are anything more than a different drug of choice. They are no different. You are not living any differently. You just choose to look to an invisible friend for your high instead of chemicals. You still end up in pretty much the same place. Again, I have no problem with that other than your attitude that in some way your drug makes you superior and everyone who chooses to use some other form of mood altering substance has a problem. There are many who believe that your particular affliction causes more pain and suffering than all the pot and alcohol combined.

Who was it that called religion the opiate of the masses? I feel pretty much the same way about TV - the ultimate opiate.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Who was it that called religion the opiate of the masses?

I think that was Karl Marx.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

What is your opinion on the subject?

IMO. When alcohol is abused, the "side effects" are much worse than when weed is "abused". However, both can be enjoyed as well, but, it can be a very difficult thing to try and balance an addiction with the person you want to become.

IMO, its when we give up hope (rejoicing despite, and even because of our sufferings and trials) that we begin to accept that what we have become is what we are. That, to me is a dangerous place. My opinion is ride the waves where they take you, but never give up and always stay open. Its an addiction, its not the end. For some an addiction is the end, but there is always hope in perseverance. Its not called the struggle for life for nothing.

And yes, this is Christian revelation. So it must not be true right?

"3Not only so, but we[a] also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

ETA: My grandmother was an alcoholic all the way to her death. She was one of the most incredible women I had met, and everyone loved her very much. I am convinced she is an angel. Absolutely beautiful heart. My step mom of 15 years was an alcoholic, I think she hit her head from being drunk and thats how she died, but we arent fully sure of that. I saw her in my dream, and we actually went flying.

I know for certain that neither drugs nor alcohol can keep anyone from a pure heart. I could go on and on with freinds and family members that struggle with addictions and other "side effects" of this world, of course myself as well. Its the heart that matters the most, and the funny thing is, that we all know that already.

"We didn't start the fire"

[FallloutboyDAoC 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

6. There has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker...

I have no issues with 99% of what they have on the site, but that line is pure BS. I'm not saying weed causes cancer, but I doubt they did much checking on that stat. Hell, I had an aunt who never smoked anything and she died of lung cancer.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume you didn't read that entire section because they fully explain how and why they came to that conclusion.

Do you know what the term "did not reach statistical significance" means?
The statement I quoted speaks for itself and is a silly...make that stupid...conclusion. It insinuates that marijuana is some kind of miracle substance that prvents you from getting lung cancer.

I think your getting extremely carried away with your opinions. What could possibly make you think that the statement, "There has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker." implies that marijuana is "some kind of miracle substance that prevents you from getting lung cancer"?

On the subject of driving while high, here's an interesting study. It's only 5:30 long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3zou4F00Ic

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Uh....what part of that statement don't you understand? It's pretty simple, really.
They are claiming that no marijuana-only smopker has ever had lung cancer. It doesn't say no marijuana-only smoker in the group studied, it says any. No disclaimers, no exceptions. I'm pretty sure they didn't check the smoking history of every person who ever died of cancer to see if they smoked cigs, weed, or both. Therefore their statement is ridiculous and unfounded.
The site goes on to say that there is not enough statistical significance to say with any degree of certainty what effect, if any, marijuana has on cancer.
Two unrelated statements unless you believe, or want to believe, that weed prevents cancer.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[LongWayToFall 0]

My main thing, is that people doing things that won't harm others, is absolutely none of anyone's business. I think everyone should be able to smoke in their own house without fear of being busted. Legalizing, however, is somewhat of the government giving a thumbs up to smoking weed, which I really don't agree with.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

My main thing, is that people doing things that won't harm others, is absolutely none of anyone's business. I think everyone should be able to smoke in their own house without fear of being busted. Legalizing, however, is somewhat of the government giving a thumbs up to smoking weed, which I really don't agree with.

I agree with the first part of your post. As long as people don't do stupid stuff to put others in harms way, I say let 'em smoke ragweed if they want.
But I think it should be legalized. Treat it like booze and tobacco. Legalize it and tax the hell out of it. Turn that expenditure of a "drug war" into a profit.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Airman1270 0]

While I have tasted the party and will probabaly do so again, count me among those who think the government has a legitimate interest in keeping illegal drugs illegal. It sets a standard: This is not a good idea and is not acceptable. (After all, who ever looked back on their life and said "Damn, I wish I had done more drugs..."?) People who wish to participate should respect this standard and be discreet.

The real problem is the increasing totalitarian police state, and the role played by drug laws. Some of the most offensive police conduct can be justified by claiming they were looking for drug violations. Behavior that was understood to be unconstitutional 30 years ago is commonplace today, and the primary reason given has to do with drugs.

Police roadblocks, automobile searches, property confiscation, workplace drug testing, etc. are far more offensive and far more dangerous to a free society than the guy who has a bag of weed in the glove compartment.

Small-potatoes violations should result in a ticket, not an arrest. This policy would enforce the basic legal standard while still keeping things in perspective.

Cheers,
Jon S.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Above is the full statement made on the website as well as the article to support it. Nowhere does it say ANY person who smokes weed only won't get cancer. It says there are no DOCUMENTED accounts of people who only smoke weed getting cancer. Next time try reading the entire article rather than assume you know what they're saying.

Excuse me, but I did read all the report. Just because it is in print doesn't mean it makes sense or is factual.
Once again, for them to say there has neven been a documanted case of a marijuana-only smoker getting lung cancer is complete bullshit unless they went and checked the backgrounds of each and every person who ever had lung cancer and medical records were kept for. Something we can be pretty sure they didn't do.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Airman1270 0]

...You have just replaced mood altering chemicals with mood altering religion. I have no problem with that, but don't try to pretend that your extreme religious beliefs are anything more than a different drug of choice...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

My goodness. Let the record show that you are the one who introduced religion into the conversation. And with hysterical knee-jerk hostility, as well.

The question is "Why?"

Cheers, Jon

[FallloutboyDAoC 0]

Quote

Two unrelated statements unless you believe, or want to believe, that weed prevents cancer.

Once again, what makes you believe that the statement, "There has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker", implies that marijuana prevents cancer?

[FallloutboyDAoC 0]

Quote

Quote

Above is the full statement made on the website as well as the article to support it. Nowhere does it say ANY person who smokes weed only won't get cancer. It says there are no DOCUMENTED accounts of people who only smoke weed getting cancer. Next time try reading the entire article rather than assume you know what they're saying.

Excuse me, but I did read all the report. Just because it is in print doesn't mean it makes sense or is factual.
Once again, for them to say there has neven been a documanted case of a marijuana-only smoker getting lung cancer is complete bullshit unless they went and checked the backgrounds of each and every person who ever had lung cancer and medical records were kept for. Something we can be pretty sure they didn't do.

The keyword is documented.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Two unrelated statements unless you believe, or want to believe, that weed prevents cancer.

Once again, what makes you believe that the statement, "There has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker", implies that marijuana prevents cancer?

Are you messing with me or can you really not see it?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

The keyword is documented

Now we are getting somewhere.
In order for a case to qualify it would have to meet three criteria: Lung cancer would have to be diagnosed, the parient would have to be proven to have smoked marijuana and only marijuana...not a single puff of tobacco, and it would have to be fully documented.
The first is the easiest to meet. Just eliminate everyone who never had lung cancer fro the study group.
The third is quite a bit tougher, but possible.
It is the second requirement, that they smoked weed and only weed, that is impossible to prove or sustantiate. Hence, their claim is bullshit and detracts from what otherwise could have been a convincing article.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[FallloutboyDAoC 0]

See what? The statement and article says there's no documented cases of marijuana causing cancer. It doesn't say that smoking marijuana will prevent cancer.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

See what? The statement and article says there's no documented cases of marijuana causing cancer. It doesn't say that smoking marijuana will prevent cancer.

No, it says there is no documented case of a marijuana-only smoker having lung cancer.
Big difference. They can't say it prevents cancer since, as you know, there is no evidence of that, so they conveniently put in a bullshit statement that they cannot prove, it can only be disproved. But to do that would require access to private medical records and personal history.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[FallloutboyDAoC 0]

Quote

No, it says there is no documented case of a marijuana-only smoker having lung cancer.
Big difference. They can't say it prevents cancer since, as you know, there is no evidence of that, so they conveniently put in a bullshit statement that they cannot prove, it can only be disproved. But to do that would require access to private medical records and personal history.

There has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker, and recent studies find that marijuana use is not associated with any type of cancer.

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

It says both. And it isn't implying that marijuana prevents cancer, it's implying that marijuana doesn't cause cancer.

[okalb 104]

Quote

...You have just replaced mood altering chemicals with mood altering religion. I have no problem with that, but don't try to pretend that your extreme religious beliefs are anything more than a different drug of choice...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

My goodness. Let the record show that you are the one who introduced religion into the conversation. And with hysterical knee-jerk hostility, as well.

The question is "Why?"

Cheers, Jon

I am not being hysterical or hostile. Ron is extremely condescending in the way he talks to people about drug usage. I realize that he has a background in helping people recover and that is great. That doesn’t mean his way is the right or only way. He often says things implying that the way to get over your addiction is through god. That is crap. I know of many people who have quit doing drugs without the need for some mythical deity to make it happen. Again, if it works for you, go for it. But to pretend that you aren’t just replacing a dependency on drugs with one on an invisible friend that gives you the “strength” to quit is bullshit. Religion is nothing more than a crutch to help you make it through the day. Just like drugs. I don’t begrudge anyone their drug of choice and as long as they don’t bother anyone else with it.. The religious types often want their particular brand of morality forced upon everyone else. What they fail to see is that their morals are not necessarily the same as everyone else. I have no problem with you wasting your Sundays taking part in the ceremony of choice, why should you have a problem with someone who wants to spend their Sunday laying on the couch and getting high.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana