Forums | MacLife

TheConfuzed1 wrote:

Tetrachloride wrote:

I'd be for legalization of marijuana if tobacco was heavily taxed.

It already is.

Not good enough.    The smokers in my family really made most of the non-smokers suffer.

ironhawk wrote:

Metacell wrote:

Marijuana, while inducing a sleepy state in many, is not a tranquilizer like alcahol.  Alcahol actually impairs the physical response of your nervous system, while at the same time reducing ones sense of safety boundaries.  Marijuana does no such thing.  People who are stoned may act clueless, but it is usually because they are absorbed in thought about something else.  Marijuana does alter your perceptions based on your mood and temperament, and that is a good enough reason not to drive on it.

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
To say that it doesn't reduce one's sense of safety boundaries, then to say it does alter your perceptions based on mood?

No, alcahol actually reduces the threshhold of danger or concern in your brain, i.e. your brain does not get the full signal.  Marijuana alters your perceptions, but it does not diminish them.  Some people so become supersensitive to stimuli that they can't functioin well (this includes social anxiety & paranoia). This is what happens to me which is why I don't really enjoy it.  If an alteration of mood causes someone on pot to behave in a reckless manner, it is really an induced emotional state, not carelessness brought on by reduced ability of the brain to respond.

We could go on here for days (I think we have), but as long as the US government (and now Canada too?!) is in the hands of the Neo-Cons, we might as well be pissing into the wind.
Look how many states have legalized medical marijuana, but the Feds still want to bust you, like it's some kinda game.
What happened to "By the People, For the People..." The people in these states have spoken. That should be the end of it.

Metacell wrote:

ironhawk wrote:

Metacell wrote:

Marijuana, while inducing a sleepy state in many, is not a tranquilizer like alcahol.  Alcahol actually impairs the physical response of your nervous system, while at the same time reducing ones sense of safety boundaries.  Marijuana does no such thing.  People who are stoned may act clueless, but it is usually because they are absorbed in thought about something else.  Marijuana does alter your perceptions based on your mood and temperament, and that is a good enough reason not to drive on it.

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
To say that it doesn't reduce one's sense of safety boundaries, then to say it does alter your perceptions based on mood?

No, alcahol actually reduces the threshhold of danger or concern in your brain, i.e. your brain does not get the full signal.  Marijuana alters your perceptions, but it does not diminish them.  Some people so become supersensitive to stimuli that they can't functioin well (this includes social anxiety & paranoia). This is what happens to me which is why I don't really enjoy it.  If an alteration of mood causes someone on pot to behave in a reckless manner, it is really an induced emotional state, not carelessness brought on by reduced ability of the brain to respond.

I understand what you're saying; I was speaking more of the end, not the means.
Any time you cannot execute a particular function properly or safely when you need to you are impaired. If smoking pot causes you to focus so intensely on one thing that you ignore dangers around you, then your sense of danger is impaired.
It may not be the same chemical reaction, nor the same means, but the effect is the same.

oatmeal wrote:

wellfleation wrote:

Wow.  That's bold. 

Possibly too bold.  I'm removing this post temporarily for Mod-Squad review. I'll get back to you one way or the other.

- Oats

So far the response in the squad has been to err on the side of caution.  Sorry.

Whatever, just thought I'd share. Live, learn, move on.

Fried Chicken wrote:

There is no difference between marijuana and nicotine.

OK, let me straighten you out right here & now. There is a HUGE smurfing difference between marijuana and nicotine. Marijuana gets you stoned. Nicotine doesn't.

Fried Chicken wrote:

No real big difference.

Nicotine is nonetheless addictive. Marijuana isn't.

Fried Chicken wrote:

The only reason that nicotine is legal is that it was socially accepted.

That, and it wasn't generally known to be harmful until, like, the 1950's.

Fried Chicken wrote:

Marijuana should be made by the government,

Why? So they can smurf it up like they do everything else?

Fried Chicken wrote:

so profits go back to the government

I guess you know a little more about marijuana than you let on at first, or else you are just smoking crack.

Fried Chicken wrote:

and, it should be taxed on top of that.

Why? Just because you don't like it?

Fried Chicken wrote:

Then, those taxes that are put on the marijuana should go to addiction rehabilitation centers

DUH! Marijuana is not addictive, so why should it be taxed for rehab centers?

Fried Chicken wrote:

or something else that benefits society.

Such as? Anyway, what makes you think the average marijuana user is going to pay five times as much for it just to satisfy your lust for taxation?

Fried Chicken wrote:

As for other drugs, they should be made and taxed by the government,

OMMFG! You think the government should be making crank, crack, ice, ecstasy, MDA, LSD and whatever else?

Fried Chicken wrote:

and they should be sold at registered pharmicies,

Jesus' tits and crackers! Do you have any goddam idea at all what you are smurfing suggesting? I'm all for legalization and a reasonable amount of taxation for marijuana, but you are either out of your smurfing mind or just trolling.

Fried Chicken wrote:

and should come in small brown paper bags

HELLO! Any amount of marijuana in existence that needs a brown paper bag is going to be enough to get about 100 people stoned! A brown paper bag full of crank will keep the same 100 people awake for about 6 months!

Fried Chicken wrote:

with no advertisements or anything.

Seems like the marijuana business (and the drug business in general) is currently doing just fine without it.

Fried Chicken wrote:

Recommending a drug to anyone else should be illegal.

Oh, wow! How ingenious! So in your utopian society it's perfectly fine to walk around wired on whatever you care to snort or shoot up but let one little "Hey, that's good smurf, man!" slip out and it's off to the hoosegow!

Fried Chicken wrote:

Sharing the drugs should be illegal.

"No, man, I can't pass it. Go get your own smurfing pot." I can see that going over really well.

Fried Chicken wrote:

You buy the drug solely for the purpose of getting over the addiction.

That's what I said the last time I bought a fifth of Jack Daniels. "I'm only buying this to get over being an alcoholic."

Fried Chicken wrote:

Of course, people will share the drugs,

No smurf, ya think?

Fried Chicken wrote:

but it should still be mildly punished if caught.

"Ma,am, I didn't pull you over for smoking a joint in front of me. I thought I saw you pass it to your boyfriend over there."

Fried Chicken wrote:

Anyway, the most important thing of all, is no advertisements.

Yes, that's what's really important.

Fried Chicken wrote:

No magazine advertisements, no TV ads, no giant bilboards.  The goal is to discourage people from taking drugs.

HELLO! IS ANYONE HOME? CAN YOU smurfing HEAR ME NOW! THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO ADVERTISEMENTS FOR DRUGS IN OUR SOCIETY AND PEOPLE ARE TAKING THEM RIGHT AND LEFT!

Fried Chicken wrote:

However, the exception is ecstasy, and other drugs that permanently damage the brain.  They should be illegal.  No exceptions.

Well, I guess you're saying that alcohol should be illegal then. It destroys brain cells. Permanently.

Fried Chicken wrote:

It damages the brain, and it is absolutely not right.

OK, then, we'll unrepeal Prohibition. Just for you.

Fried Chicken wrote:

If someone takes marijuana, and is high at home, it doesn't bother anyone.

It's not an appropriate thing to do right in front of your children but, overall, that's about the only lucid sentence in your entire post.

Fried Chicken wrote:

If someone takes ecstasy, and lowers his IQ, and ends up living off of social help, then that person is damaging society.

Well, you'll have a hard time catching that person since they can make ecstasy in their kitchen sink pretty easily and sit around the house and trip their brains out on it and make themselves stupid as hell and ... oh, now I see where this post came from!

DukeofNuke wrote:

We could go on here for days (I think we have), but as long as the US government (and now Canada too?!) is in the hands of the Neo-Cons, we might as well be pissing into the wind.

Perhaps not.
I think if you asked people in minithink - they would agree that I am a neocon.
I am definitely FOR the legalization of marijuana.

As a drug, Marijuana is mild enough that it really is not the governments business wether the hell I use it as an adult. It also shows great promise in medical application, since it is cheap to grow - it could radically reduce the cost of healthcare as well.

I believe Bill O'Reilly is for the legalization - not positive, but I think he has stated that as well.

I know I have heard other neocons state it - and when Marijuana was recently brought to the supreme court, it was the conservatives that were for a states right to legalize marijuana for medical use - it was the liberals on the courts that put the hammer down.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

Fried Chicken wrote:

or something else that benefits society.

Such as? Anyway, what makes you think the average marijuana user is going to pay five times as much for it just to satisfy your lust for taxation?

I think the price would be less if it were legal, even with a tax.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

Fried Chicken wrote:

As for other drugs, they should be made and taxed by the government,

OMMFG! You think the government should be making crank, crack, ice, ecstasy, MDA, LSD and whatever else?

I'm with Duke.  You can't do that.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

Fried Chicken wrote:

However, the exception is ecstasy, and other drugs that permanently damage the brain.  They should be illegal.  No exceptions.

Well, I guess you're saying that alcohol should be illegal then. It destroys brain cells. Permanently.

So does coffee.

resedit wrote:

It also shows great promise in medical application, since it is cheap to grow - it could radically reduce the cost of healthcare as well.

It is precisely that it's so cheap to grow as to why AMA is so against legalization. The profit is not there, and therefore, the AMA, drug companies, etc., lobby against legalization.

I just read in the paper that people who suffer from cystic fibrosis and who are surfers have many, many less issues with their lungs due to the fact they breathe in a lot of salt water when out in the ocean. The article then went on to say a saline solution with salt water would have the same effect in a breathing treatment for those with CF, and went on to add, that since it was so cheap to produce and the profit so minimal, drug companies were VERY reluctant to jump on board. How pathetic, and it's the same issue with pot. It's always about the bottom line and never about a persons quality of life.

A friend and I, at the California state fair, got another friend stoned for the first time.  This was him:

*In the parking lot, double fisted with munchies, perma-grin, and tomato-red eyes*

I don't feel anything.



We spent the next two hours riding the Flying Bobsleds ride, over and over again.  There was no line, so we got to keep going.  I normally can't ride spinning rides, due to motion sickness, but guess what... Pot stops that.

Last edited by TheConfuzed1 (2006-01-26 4:16 pm)

MacMonkey wrote:

Yes.
With the same restrictions as alcohol of course.

Right, because liquor laws in the U.S. form the pinnacle of logical and pragmatic legislation.