hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Jun 25, 2007 18:26:51 GMT -5
How do YOU know that he doesn't mean what he says? How do YOU know that he's not correct in his statements about the drug's potency and effect on the human body? In the absence of hard evidence to the contrary (other than your claims based on, as best I can tell, personal observation and conjecture), I'm going to believe the authority figure over you. You are confusing two issues. From the factual standpoint, i.e. taking him literally on what he says, my complaints would center on the fact that he said this new weed will hurt you, will addict you and can kill you. Those are factually questionable at BEST. It is a documented fact that marijuana has NEVER killed anyone directly. Even indirect deaths are extremely rare, and almost exclusively related to DUI. There have been zero instances of deaths due to overdoses of mj. So his statement is wrong. As for addiction, all studies that I have seen clearly indicate that mj is not physically addictive at all, unlike alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs. So again he states a clear falsehood. As for the harm issue, that is the one that is debatable. It is probably not good to smoke anything. I wouldn't argue that point. THus it is probably somewhat harmful to smoke mj. Again I wouldn't argue that point. But, the comparative harm of smoking the amount of mj than users do, pales enormously to other risks, most obviously tobacco smoking. Although I haven't conducted a study, I would guess that other jobs such as firemen and barbeque cooks face far worse "harm" from the smoke they are around. Do you really argue the substance of the debate or are you just arguing with me on principle alone? Or are you just against mj altogether? That is a reasonable position, but one which I would disagree with. I'm really arguing the substance of the debate. You argue against the clear weight of the evidence, act like there's only anecdotal evidence out there supporting drug laws and call into question simple statements or acts without any basis for your allegations.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 25, 2007 19:03:21 GMT -5
The point is here is an authority figure saying that this weed is very harmful to you, increasingly addictive and can kill you! That simply isn't the case and every single study has shown so. Where'd you learn that, Cheech? Drug school?
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Jun 25, 2007 19:08:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jun 25, 2007 19:17:51 GMT -5
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jun 26, 2007 3:36:48 GMT -5
I am just amazed at such utter lack of attention to facts. ... to just pull sh!t out of your a$$ like this and state it as if you really believe it is amazing -- absolutely amazing. Hmmm. HiFi, I guess you haven't been listening to Alberto Gonzalez, or Dick Cheney, or Tony Snow, or....take your pick.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 26, 2007 10:43:47 GMT -5
There are a couple of interesting points there. The one that really jumped out at me was that pot use increases by four times the likelihood of a heart attack. That is especially odd considering the fact that there has never been a pot induced heart attack death. I guess those attacks are little baby ones like Fred Sanford was famous for.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Jun 26, 2007 10:46:14 GMT -5
There are a couple of interesting points there. The one that really jumped out at me was that pot use increases by four times the likelihood of a heart attack. That is especially odd considering the fact that there has never been a pot induced heart attack death. I guess those attacks are little baby ones like Fred Sanford was famous for. Nice. Your response to overwhelming evidence about a dangerous and deadly substance that you've been arguing isn't "all that bad" is to make a joke.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jun 26, 2007 12:01:25 GMT -5
And even if there's hazy evidence about pot's physical addictiveness doesn't mean it's not psychologically addicitive.
|
|
bubbrubbhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
We are the intuitive minds that plot the course. Woo-WOOO!
Posts: 1,369
|
Post by bubbrubbhoya on Jun 26, 2007 13:01:45 GMT -5
hifi, I hate you.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 26, 2007 13:03:25 GMT -5
There are a couple of interesting points there. The one that really jumped out at me was that pot use increases by four times the likelihood of a heart attack. That is especially odd considering the fact that there has never been a pot induced heart attack death. I guess those attacks are little baby ones like Fred Sanford was famous for. Nice. Your response to overwhelming evidence about a dangerous and deadly substance that you've been arguing isn't "all that bad" is to make a joke. Tables, I got busy earlier and didn't get to finish the thought. As to the dangers, like I said before, smoking anything is probably not healthy. I never meant to suggest otherwise. However the magnitude of tobacco smoking dwarfs that of weed. I would guess that people who smoke "tons" of weed, might smoke 6 or 7 joints a day, if that. Whereas cig smokers sometimes go through 2 and a half packs a day. 50 compared to 6 or 7 is simple too dramatic a difference to be ignored. And the 6 or 7 number is inflated for all but a very elite few for sure. So as to the health issue of lung disease, the numbers just pale by comparison. Probably something like 3 joints, or the equivalent amount from a pipe/bong etc.... is a much more realistic number. That would mean that pot smoke would need to be something like 15-20 times as harmful to make up for the difference in the aggregate amount. As for the drop-out/failure rate, I haven't heard anyone suggest that weed should be legal for kids. Additionally, I bet the reverse correlation is more accurate. I would guess that a higher percentage of dropouts then use weed. Lastly, the relationship between dropping out and smoking weed is probably more an indication of a stable family situation and supportive and concerned parents. In other words, the better parents are more involved with their kids and their daily activities. They are more active in their lives. I would suggest that such parenting results in a lower percentage of kids who use mj. So I would question whether it is the weed "making" the kids drop out, or the fact that proper parenting will generally create more disciplined kids and a lower percentage of pot users.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 26, 2007 13:04:12 GMT -5
You have a lot to say, I see.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Jun 26, 2007 13:16:51 GMT -5
Tables, I got busy earlier and didn't get to finish the thought. As to the dangers, like I said before, smoking anything is probably not healthy. I never meant to suggest otherwise. However the magnitude of tobacco smoking dwarfs that of weed. I would guess that people who smoke "tons" of weed, might smoke 6 or 7 joints a day, if that. Whereas cig smokers sometimes go through 2 and a half packs a day. 50 compared to 6 or 7 is simple too dramatic a difference to be ignored. And the 6 or 7 number is inflated for all but a very elite few for sure. So as to the health issue of lung disease, the numbers just pale by comparison. Probably something like 3 joints, or the equivalent amount from a pipe/bong etc.... is a much more realistic number. That would mean that pot smoke would need to be something like 15-20 times as harmful to make up for the difference in the aggregate amount. You're using exaggeration again. Some cigarette smokers may smoke over 2 packs a day, but there are plenty that smoke a pack -- or less -- and are still at substantial risk. The facts I cited say that smoking 5 joints is the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes. Even if if someone only smoked a couple of joints a day, that would still be the equivalent of a half-pack a day. You don't need a medical expert to tell you that smoking a half-pack of cigarettes a day is unhealthy, and the same is true for marijuana. Marijuana use is unhealthy, dangerous, and potentially deadly. That's why it is illegal.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 26, 2007 14:15:18 GMT -5
Tables, I got busy earlier and didn't get to finish the thought. As to the dangers, like I said before, smoking anything is probably not healthy. I never meant to suggest otherwise. However the magnitude of tobacco smoking dwarfs that of weed. I would guess that people who smoke "tons" of weed, might smoke 6 or 7 joints a day, if that. Whereas cig smokers sometimes go through 2 and a half packs a day. 50 compared to 6 or 7 is simple too dramatic a difference to be ignored. And the 6 or 7 number is inflated for all but a very elite few for sure. So as to the health issue of lung disease, the numbers just pale by comparison. Probably something like 3 joints, or the equivalent amount from a pipe/bong etc.... is a much more realistic number. That would mean that pot smoke would need to be something like 15-20 times as harmful to make up for the difference in the aggregate amount. You're using exaggeration again. Some cigarette smokers may smoke over 2 packs a day, but there are plenty that smoke a pack -- or less -- and are still at substantial risk. The facts I cited say that smoking 5 joints is the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes. Even if if someone only smoked a couple of joints a day, that would still be the equivalent of a half-pack a day. You don't need a medical expert to tell you that smoking a half-pack of cigarettes a day is unhealthy, and the same is true for marijuana. Marijuana use is unhealthy, dangerous, and potentially deadly. That's why it is illegal. I wasn't trying to exaggerate at all. Two and a half packs might be high. I honestly don't know. But I didn't mean to imply that number to be an average, just that there are a significant number of heavy somkers for whom such a number would be accurate. Compare that to a heavy pot smoker and the most I could fathom is something like 6 or 7 joints a day, and that is a real stretch. I would guess that the number of tobacco users falling in the "heavy" category, under such terms would dwarf the number of pot smokers falling in such a category. Do you think that is an accurate assessment? Secondly, remember that when a "joint" is smoked, normally there are at least 2 people participating. At least from my experience, it is very unusual for someone to smoke and entire joint at a time by themselves. So I really do think that 2-3 joints would be a much more accurate number for most "daily" users. Again, I don't have any study on this. Do you think such a number would be reasonable? Lastly, you wrote this: Marijuana use is unhealthy, dangerous, and potentially deadly. That's why it is illegal.If you use that logic, then alcohol and tobacco would be illegal as well. I don't want to open up that whole area for debate again, but I do want to point out that using such logic to justify the criminalization of pot is flawed at best. But getting back to the original point, you again say "potentially deadly." That just simply hasn't been proven ever and in fact has been disproven every single time.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Jun 26, 2007 14:27:31 GMT -5
But getting back to the original point, you again say "potentially deadly." That just simply hasn't been proven ever and in fact has been disproven every single time. I'm done with this. If you want to advocate the use of marijuana and ignore the overwhelming data out there that lists a litanty of adverse direct and indirect effects, up to and including death, that's fine. Just don't bring the arguments around here. To the extent that young individuals do read this board, I would rather they not base any decisions on some factual misstatements, inaccuracies, or falsehoods that you've posted.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 26, 2007 14:48:06 GMT -5
And even if there's hazy evidence about pot's physical addictiveness doesn't mean it's not psychologically addicitive. That is an interesting point and one which I wouldn't argue. I am not even close to being a psychiatrist, but I do think that we all have predispositions to be a certain way. I think we have varying amounts of whatever makeup it is that causes us to be creatures of habit. Some people are more drawn to a routine while others are more of a freelancer in nature. Similarly, some are more inclined to become chemically dependent, I think it is fair to say. That is not to say that anyone is immune from such, but I do think there is something different inside each of us in this regard. That being said, I think these variables could easily influence some form of phsychological dependency. What I mean is that some people who are more creatures of habit are more likely to become addicted to a routine which includes certain things, and among these could be smoking for example. I do think that could be a reasonable suggestion. And for someone of this mentality and attitude, something which disrupts their routine could easily result in moodiness, agitation, sleeplessness or fatigue for example. In that regard I think it would be reasonable to say that weed could in that way be "psychologically addicting." But the same could be said of caffeine and other daily products. I can tell you right now that I am addicted to caffeine. I'm not much of a coffee drinker, but I am very rarely more than an arm's reach from a diet soda. So the question now becomes that if this form of psychological addiction is bad, where do we draw the line and how do we determine which chemicals should be regulated. Again, I am not trying to bring up the legalization issue again, as we have covered it in detail, and have a difference of opinion. Getting back to the original point, it is still somewhat of an exaggeration at the very best to claim that this weed will hurt and even kill you.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 26, 2007 14:54:10 GMT -5
But getting back to the original point, you again say "potentially deadly." That just simply hasn't been proven ever and in fact has been disproven every single time. I'm done with this. If you want to advocate the use of marijuana and ignore the overwhelming data out there that lists a litanty of adverse direct and indirect effects, up to and including death, that's fine. Just don't bring the arguments around here. To the extent that young individuals do read this board, I would rather they not base any decisions on some factual misstatements, inaccuracies, or falsehoods that you've posted. Let's not beat this dead horse anymore. You and I have a difference of opinion as to if and how pot should be regulated. Fair enough. But try to separate that argument from the specific comments this guy made. For him to say "it can kill you," is a stretch of tremendous proportion. I don't understand how you could deny that much. Never, EVER is there a case of marijuana induced death. It is that simple. That doesn't mean it is good for you. As for the health issue, I never said it was good for you and in fact said that smoking anything is probably not good for you. But the amounts of smoke inhaled by tobacco users dwarfs the marijuana smoke ingested by even the most frequent smokers. Therefore to use the argument that it is bad for you and should therefore be illegal is falacious. Lastly, I really do think that these comments were designed as a scare tactic, and do not think they represent the facts at all.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jun 26, 2007 19:18:05 GMT -5
Let's not beat this dead horse anymore. You and I have a difference of opinion as to if and how pot should be regulated. Fair enough. But try to separate that argument from the specific comments this guy made. For him to say "it can kill you," is a stretch of tremendous proportion. I don't understand how you could deny that much. Never, EVER is there a case of marijuana induced death. It is that simple. That doesn't mean it is good for you. As for the health issue, I never said it was good for you and in fact said that smoking anything is probably not good for you. But the amounts of smoke inhaled by tobacco users dwarfs the marijuana smoke ingested by even the most frequent smokers. Therefore to use the argument that it is bad for you and should therefore be illegal is falacious. Lastly, I really do think that these comments were designed as a scare tactic, and do not think they represent the facts at all. HiFI - Its not a scare tactic - its a legitimate point - we restrict the access of peolpe to all sorts of drugs for non-medicinal purposes because the abuse of such drugs can lead to using drugs with worse consequences. If you and others don't like this and have some ultra-libritarian view that people should be able to freely ingest anything they want then go to the legislature and change the law. The reason that NORML and so many other pro-pot groups fail in even getting these issues onto a legislative agenda in any meaningful way is that most people think pot is dangerous and addictive in some form.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 27, 2007 12:17:10 GMT -5
It's not a legitimate point when it is entirely false. Forget about addiction and harm for a minute. Zero deaths ever says it all. To say this can kill you when it hasn't ever and has been used with as much widespread popularity as marijuana can be nothing but a scare tactic. Forget about all the other issues and look at that one statement for a minute.
Secondly, you are correct when you say the way to address this from a legal standpoint is to attempt to have the law changed. We are moving at least at a snail's pace in that direction. If I remember correctly, there were 4 states that had legalized marijuana on the docket last fall. None went through, but just to be considered is a step in the right direction in my mind.
Again, to say that it is addictive and dangerous and should therefore be illegal is somewhat shallow reasoning. Again, I would point to tobacco and alcohol which have greater dangers and are more addictive and are yet legal.
As for the libertarian reasoning, yes I pretty much do think that people should be free to do what they want provided it doesn't infringe on other people's freedoms and rights. But that utopian view will never fly so I won't even bother trying to promote such a platform.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jun 27, 2007 17:52:57 GMT -5
I suggest you re-read what I said. The word "death" or any connotation of it does not appear in what I wrote. As I pointed out to you the difference is that there is no organized pro-pot lobby with legitimate force in the legislative process.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 27, 2007 20:47:10 GMT -5
I suggest you re-read what I said. The word "death" or any connotation of it does not appear in what I wrote. As I pointed out to you the difference is that there is no organized pro-pot lobby with legitimate force in the legislative process. Sorry stpete, in street hoops terms ... "my bad." My "reply" was really intended as a response to specific defense of the DEA agent's statement that "it will kill you." Kill and death are somewhat synonomously linked. I now understand that you were addressing the general statement as a whole. Yes, there is certainly some grey area with regard to "hurt/harm" and "addiction." I apologize for the confusing wording.
|
|