Marijuana

by **JimmyTango** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:06 pm

Murg, all I did was flip the 'naieve' sentence back onto you, and you have throw a little temper tantrum. Seriously, grow up.

by **Murgatroyd** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:14 pm

Originally posted by JimmyTango
Murg, all I did was flip the 'naieve' sentence back onto you, and you have throw a little temper tantrum. Seriously, grow up.

I think that you are over simplifying what you said, and what it implied. I'm not denying your right to contradict what I said, but your approach certainly struck a nerve, and I firmly believe that I responded appropriately. I don't feel as if I should have to defend, or apologize for my reaction. What you said was insensitive, presumptuous, and rude.

by **JimmyTango** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:37 pm

Kinda hard to reply to someone on your ignore list, huh?

I didn't even take the naieve cooment as bad, and I only opened with it because your quote opened with it.

You have blown something WAY out of the water, and it is that simple.

Over simplifying what I said? Read it again, it said 'Naieve would be.......'

That means I am obviously replying to your opening. Seriously, grow up and stop grasping at straws for an arguement.

by **Doyle Hargraves** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:43 pm

I think to get at the core of this argument we need to go to a scholar who has researched the subject.. I nominate Peter Tosh.. Legalize it dont criticize it..

by **Folic_Acid** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:55 pm

Originally posted by JimmyTango
It is CLEARLY defined in what constitutes addiction when dealign with narcotics by the DEA, and what you explained does not in any way fall into the classification of an addictive agent.

Addictive: (ad·dict·tive)
tr.v. ad·dict·ed, ad·dict·ing, ad·dicts

1. To cause to become physiologically or psychologically dependent on a habit-forming substance: The thief was addicted to cocaine.
2. To occupy (oneself) with or involve (oneself) in something habitually or compulsively: The child was addicted to video games.

So, we see here that indeed, psycological or compulsory habit, as Murgatroyd described, is "addiction."

Narcotic: (nar·cot·ic)

1. Pertaining to or producing narcosis (privation of sense or consciousness)
2. <pharmacology> An agent that produces insensibility or stupor, applied especially to the opioids, i.e. To any natural or synthetic drug that has morphine like actions.

And, we see here that marijuana IS, in fact, a narcotic.

I'd also be happy to post titles and excerpts of several studies that show that marijuana is, in fact, harmful, if anyone might be interested.

by **Murgatroyd** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:57 pm

Unfortunately, there is no ignore list.

I also couldn't help responding to your last deluge of personal invections.

I don't know why you constantly persist with this "I'll just turn his argument back at him" strategy - it's transparent, and makes you come off as irritating rather than valid.

Listen, I didn't start this. Apparently, you get your jollies starting arguments in forums, then degenerating to name calling and personal attacks once your opponent won't play the game on your terms.

I'm not fond of arguing. I like debate, but I don't nit-pick semantics, and I don't appreciate it when people do it to me either, and I refuse to engage in an argument over the definition of a word, or the technical implications of the way something was put.

Bottom line. You insulted me personally. I initially believed that it was your intention, which you have illustrated in your follow-up posts, with such terms as "pity party" and "boo hoo", numerous violin smileys, and constantly telling me to "grow up".

I simply shared a personal anecdote, attempting to illustrate a point. Perhaps that wasn't the best idea.

I'm not going to say anything further on this subject, and contrary to my previous post, I intend on honoring my pledge. If you want to interpret this as "winning", go right ahead, Jimmy. You won. Go celebrate.

by **Fat Bastard** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:14 pm

Shouldn't be legal, if you think it should be then yous can go to the doctors who smoke the dope before they operate on ya

Cause that along with a billion other type of jobs will have negative effects.

Why because it is addictive and people cant say no. If you dont think its addictive then you have never smoked enough of it or you pulled a clinton and didnt inhale. Its as simple as that.

by **Jim0322** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:31 pm

Originally posted by Folic_Acid
[b]I'd also be happy to post titles and excerpts of several studies that show that marijuana is, in fact, harmful, if anyone might be interested.

I still think pot is less harmful than alcohol. Overdosing on pot will not kill, alcohol poisoning will. Quit smoking pot abruptly after months/years of heavy use and it will not kill you. Quit drinking after weeks/months of heavy daily drinking can give you DTs and could potentially result in death.

Jim

by **JimmyTango** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:37 pm

Originally posted by Folic_Acid

And, we see here that marijuana IS, in fact, a narcotic.

I'd also be happy to post titles and excerpts of several studies that show that marijuana is, in fact, harmful, if anyone might be interested.

Frolic,

please, look up the classification of a narcotic according to our laws, the DEA, etc, not what Webster's says, as Webster's has no barring on our laws. It is completley different, honestly.

There have been numerous studies done by the government that show how bad marijuana is, I have read them all. During Clinton's term in office, he otherized the first and only independant study funded by our government. This means that while the government funded it, they did not actually do the study. This was the first study that our government was involved in(even in just funding) that said the exact opposite of what you mention above. In fact, it came out in support of legalizing THC pills for medical use. It also said it could not be classified as a narcotic as there is no addiction, and addiction has to be physical(like a physical withdraw). Seriously, this study was very eye opening.

I wish I had knowledge of this study's name or where I can get a copy of it, as I was blown away when i read about it. It was in the Akron beacon journal(AP press, so problably every other major paper, too), so this is not some stupid webpage making up crap(there are tons of them, for both sides of the fence). If memory serves, it was released when Bush was in office, but the study started under Clinton, if that can help others track it down(I have tried but can not find it).

murg,

Enough of your BS. You blew it out of the water, and saying I try to start fights by flipping people's posts back on them is just utterly stupid. That would mean your original post was offensive in the first place, and tried to start a fight in the first place. You keep coming up with the stupidist reasons why it is ok for you to say people are naieve, and the stupidist reasons why i can not say 'naieve would be....'.

Heck, at first you did not even realize why I had responded with 'Naieve would be...' and posted as if I had come out of th blue with it. Enough man, it is chilsih. You blew something out of the water and there is no need to continue it, especially with stupid and baseless excuses.

by **Major SONAR** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:48 pm

By RCglider:

A friend I grew up with has been smoking pot for 25 years. His use of it hasn't changed him at all; he still has low paying jobs, doesn't care much about improving himself, can't remember anything, is paranoid everyone's out to get him and dreams of the day he can collect disability or win the lotto so he can have more time to smoke dope so he can cope with life. Nah, it's not addictive.

Damn... You are SOOO Conservative! (That must be why I like you,)

Seriously though, I would vote againt making pot legal. Same goes for alcohol too. Make it illegal. (Not that making alcohol illegal will ever happen)

Do you know how many people die from alcohol related accidents every year? Illnesses? How many people become addicted and loose everything? Alcohol is worse than pot in my opinion. But I'm going off on a tangent...

If we make pot legal, many more juveniles will use it. (That's what America needs... more kids on pot!) Maybe it has some medicinal uses for nausea, etc, but the negatives far outweight the positives.

Do I think pot and alcohol are bad? No, not if people use them in moderation, but both substances are readily available and easily abused.

by **Rule of Wrist** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:59 pm

I think there should be a law against making laws to protect people from themselves.

So, if you want to, you can smoke pot, drink alcohol, shoot up with heroin, or whatever you want, as long as you only do it to yourself. Now, if you are under the effects of one of these things, and get behind the wheel of a car, you are now endangering others besides yourself, so there should be laws to protect against this...

Seriously, if people want to do this to themselves, let them... who pays the consequences for these actions? They do. Why should we stop them? The people who really want to do it will do it anyway, regardless of how many laws we pass... the people who want to do well in life will do that instead of drugs...

So as long as people are aware of the dangers and do it anyway, it's on them, IMO...

by **MajorFatty** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:02 pm

Originally posted by Major SONAR

If we make pot legal, many more juveniles will use it. (That's what America needs... more kids on pot!)

It's easier for kids to obtain pot than liquer these days.

by **JimmyTango** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:08 pm

Originally posted by Rule of Wrist

Seriously, if people want to do this to themselves, let them... who pays the consequences for these actions? They do.

Having the political beliefs that you have, I woudl have thought you would be pissed to be paying for part of their rehab, medical bills, court costs, etc via taxes!

And since I need a disclaimer to even take a crap, this is a joke, and not a put down.

by Conscious* » Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:12 pm

I say yes, if it hooks you on other drugs, it was your chioce to do it in the first place. In Amsterdam you can buy Marijuanna leagally in cafes where they serve it with chocolate, and not near as much of the % of the population in the Netherlands are addicted to other more dangerous drugs.

by **Folic_Acid** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:55 pm

Originally posted by JimmyTango
Frolic,

please, look up the classification of a narcotic according to our laws, the DEA, etc, not what Webster's says, as Webster's has no barring on our laws. It is completley different, honestly.

I beg your pardon. I was actually referring to Taber's Medical Cyclopedia - the standard text for all medical terms. And, I'd be happy to look up the particular acts when I get back to work.

And, FYI - it's Folic. Not Frolic. Unless we're taking liberties with names, that is.

Marijuana

Who is online