- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Marijuna
yes I am. The study just came out today.
yes I am. The study just came out today.
Another "legalize pot" thread. :roll:
Is there anything left to say that hasn't already been said on the matter?
Is it now just different people saying the same old thing?
What's new here?
Another "legalize pot" thread. :roll:
Is there anything left to say that hasn't already been said on the matter?
Is it now just different people saying the same old thing?
What's new here?
Are you referring to the same NIDA that once stated this "fact" in their "Facts parents need to know" publication?
here is this so called fact in its full context that they cherry picked and played loose with. notice any omissions or distortion of the actual truth of this "fact"?
so adults who use all three of tobacco, alcohol and marijuana are 104 times more likey to use cocaine, but when it comes to NIDA and their "facts" it suddenly becomes just marijuana, and the other 2 necessary components behind this figure come up missing.
NIDA plays very loose with their "facts" and distorts and misrepresents them for the sake of propaganda. They have no credibility despite the gov. But of course.. you know the gov is infallible, why would they lie to us? :roll:
yes I am. The study just came out today.
You have succeeded in persuading me.
You have succeeded in persuading me.
did you look at my links I posted a couple of pages back regarding decriminalization and usage rates?
Periodically smoking marijuana doesn't appear to hurt lung capacity, the largest study ever conducted on pot smokers has found.
Even though most marijuana smokers tend to inhale deeply and hold the smoke in for as long as they can before exhaling, the lung capacity didn't deteriorate even among those who smoked a joint a day for seven years or once a week for 20 years, according to the study published Tuesday in JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association.
In recent years, studies on marijuana smoking and its effects on lung function have been contradictory. While most studies have shown no effects on the lungs from smoking cannabis, others have shown adverse effects, and still others have shown improvement in lung function. Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, and University of Alabama at Birmingham knew tobacco smoking causes lung damage and leads to respiratory issues such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but they wanted to be clear whether smoking marijuana, had similar effects.
They measured lung function multiple times in more than 5,100 men and women during a 20-year period. In fact, the research shows, some people who regularly smoke marijuana can have a slight improvement in lung function.
Vitals - Smoking pot doesn't hurt lung capacity, study shows
I think I'm going to make a new poll on marijuana. NOT about legality, but about the effect on the body, regarding that link Winston provided. If no one can offer updated data to counter the research in that article, then I have no real choic but to accept it as currently correct.
And what basis do you have for this?
If most roaches don't crawl onto the floor from the shadows when the light is out, what happens when you turn the light off? More roaches emerge.
How exactly is that?
Question: If murder was made legal, would that as well drop the rate in murder?
The logic is that making it legal decreases the occurence, so wouldn't that work for theives and murderers and other currently illegal things as well?
I haven't read them yet because I was dealing with a hacker on FB. I'll copy/paste those links onto my profile and check them out later at my leisure.
Comparing murder to smoking weed is dumb.
Comparing murder to smoking weed is dumb.
Yes I agree, LOL! nice catch evanescence! :lol:
No. We have to think at a social and cultural level as well as what might be better for junkees and prostitutes.Logically, if drugs and prostitution were legal, both would be safer. Isn't that more important than other considerations?
The Marxist says he is not a collectivist, the liberal says he is not an atomist, when pushed. When you get down to it they are almost always these. You have shown that you may be rather quickly when you associate any sort of governmental and societal role in morality and social cohesion with the governmental simply forcing people to do things. As if it were simply some simplistic choice of completely removing all government roles in these issues or having them do everything for everyone. This denotes a simplistic view of society.Will people ever stop with this stupid straw-man argument that gets flung at Liberals and Libertarians? No one says that a man is an island. He simply is not a cog in a machine. People have the right and ability to react to society and find their place in it. The government does not need to be there to wipe crap from our bottoms or dress us. People are social and largely moral, not because someone makes them do it, but because they want to be. You've been talking in abstracts, and I have not seen any evidence of "moral decay" (whatever the hell that is) in places where prostitution is legal. Meanwhile, we do know that allowing people to engage in vices that you don't like (and, in this case, I don't really like either) but don't violate anyone's rights tends to reduce harm to society and the people involved in those vices
Come let me tell you a tale of what it means to be a conservative.Do you find it ironic that some on the right would stand and demand more "personal accountability" when it comes to financial solvency but would just as willingly try to regulate private, personal behavior for the "common good"?
I never compared murder to weed.
Ergo, there was no "catch."
Question: If murder was made legal, would that as well drop the rate in murder?
Umm.... lets just back track and see exactly what you said .... oh yeah, here it is:
You were either making an analogy with prostitution (which would be off topic) or you were making an analogy with marijuana use, either way, murder is not comparable to either of those currently illegal activities and that was the whole point, i.e. the "catch".
Actually, no.
Actually, I was testing this line of logic:
"Legalizing something decreases the occurrence of that once-illegal something."
The Marxist says he is not a collectivist, the liberal says he is not an atomist, when pushed. When you get down to it they are almost always these. You have shown that you may be rather quickly when you associate any sort of governmental and societal role in morality and social cohesion with the governmental simply forcing people to do things. As if it were simply some simplistic choice of completely removing all government roles in these issues or having them do everything for everyone. This denotes a simplistic view of society.
I have been talking about the basic, intellectual issues. If this is abstract then it is a necessary abstraction in the contexts.
If it is completely up to each person to pick their spot in society then surely that makes society something very superficial and unimportant to individuals who would be self-reliant and formed outside society? Sort of sounds quite atomistic to me. A basic plank of a non-atomistic view of society is there are elements that are not simply choice.So now you're telling me what I think? No, Wessexman, I'm not an atomist. Each person has a place in society, but it is up to people to pick that spot. We do not need government controlling our every move. Again, what happened in Amsterdam and Nevada? You have not provided any evidence of the harms caused by legalizing things like prostitution
Statistics are treacherous things, they need a lot of evaluation and assessment to make sense of them. One can immediately point out large wholes in using these examples. For instance they are quite limited in scope, they are also, in the case of Amsterdam, in a country which is hardly a shining moral beacon for humanity anyway. The conservative should start by considering the social effects; statistics can help, but they are far from a complete guide to such issues. We should look at those involved and the communities in which they take place, but also at their cultural and imaginative setting. Nevada is socially and culturally quite interwoven with the rest of the US, which mitigates the effects of such practices, either way. You also have not attempted to assess the amount of people using these prostitutes, who is using them and the moral effects this has on them, on the prostitutes and on their relations and close associates.
Also prostitution is just a part of a whole cultural and social milieu. Like so called 'gay marriage', we shouldn't suggest that it would end all sexual and social morality, but it would be one more nail in the coffin. The same goes for legalised prostitution in the current. Western contexts.
No. We have to think at a social and cultural level as well as what might be better for junkees and prostitutes.
I'm not arguing for keeping marijuana illegal, in fact I said I'd end its prohibition. As for the rest of the drugs, many of them are completely artificial and lazy highs which are taken wholly or mostly for their own effects, as is the case with both heroin, crack and meth and party drugs like MDMA, rather than for any sort of positive contribution to a positive human activity, as is the case with alcohol which can be drunk in a convivial atmosphere where it is not the main part of the activity. In our decadent and indulgent society we do not need any more lazy and artificial ways to feel good.How is keeping Marijuana and drugs illegal better on a social and cultural level? It's not as if these laws actually prevent the behavior.
Marijuana smokers are not "junkies".
I'm not arguing for keeping marijuana illegal, in fact I said I'd end its prohibition. As for the rest of the drugs, many of them are completely artificial and lazy highs which are taken wholly or mostly for their own effects, as is the case with both heroin, crack and meth and party drugs like MDMA, rather than for any sort of positive contribution to a positive human activity, as is the case with alcohol which can be drunk in a convivial atmosphere where it is not the main part of the activity. In our decadent and indulgent society we do not need any more lazy and artificial ways to feel good.