Do you follow the same policies about people who have a glass of wine with dinner? That kills brain cells.
Do you hate everyone who drinks coffee? Caffeine is actually chemically addictive and can kill you if you overdose, whereas pot cannot kill you no matter how much you have.
How about Barack Obama? He's admitted to smoking pot. Do you hate him because of that fact? Or Carl Sagan, one of the 20th century's most loved scientists? He was an avid pot smoker as well.
The best athlete in the world, Michael Phelps, also smokes pot. Do you hate him?
Your opinions of hate are horrible. Please re-think how you feel about marijuana and maybe read some science about the drug. It's much less damaging than alcohol.
> Caffeine is actually chemically addictive and can kill you if you overdose, whereas pot cannot kill you no matter how much you have.
Wait, I thought THC could kill you, except you are unable to smoke enough to reach toxic limits. Coffee is weak enough I can't imagine I could consume enough to give myself Caffeine poisoning before I got water poisoning.
If you're talking about pure caffeine, make sure you compare it to pure THC.
THC can kill you in the same sense that water or any other non-toxic substance can[1], if you consume enough of it it'll saturate your body and interrupt your vital functions.
But to do that you need to consume much more than any person would do naturally while smoking or eating it. E.g. you'd have to inject a 2-3 liters of it or dissolved in a saline solution. Or smoke it so heavily that it starts interrupting your oxygen supply, which is what they did in the "weed kills monkey braincells" experiment).
1. Actually water is much more practically dangerous. Many people have died from water toxicity.
Also, while I disapprove of marijuana abuse (I've used twice, never felt like it could benefit me in any way), I would like all movements to legalize marijuana to wait until there's
a) a comprehensive study (or studies) on the triggers of bad reactions to THC (anxiety, paranoid thought etc.) which to the best of my knowledge doesn't exist so far, as well as to its link with T-cell function impairment
b) at least one reliable way of acquiring marijuana which is properly grown and
c) ending once and for all the misinformation about marijuana, THC, and their effects and alleged links to drug addiction, and so forth.
Marijuana and smoke are not tied together. Many people bake brownies. Some people smoke alone, so no others are affected. Vaporizers eliminate the smoke altogether.
It's not antisocial. In fact, it's one of the most social activities humanity has ever come across.
Police use the word antisocial here to when referring to it. I think they are using it in a completely different context though to how we normally use to word though.
More to do with out of line with how wider society expects people to behave or something similar.
In terms of the way we mostly use the word, yes it is a very social thing in bringing people together and having them interact.
There's no argument for marijuana prohibition that does not also apply to alcohol prohibition, and we all know how that turned out. We're wasting billions of taxpayer dollars to prosecute what is at worst a poor personal health decision.
Alcohol has many other disadvantages which are, IMO, worse than just the harm to personal health, though these normally only surface when overused. Can't say the same about marijuana though, and I agree with you about that.
That's quite the jump. If you hadn't stated elsewhere that you don't consume cannabis, I would say that you are high.
People use and abuse drugs. Get over it. If you actually do care about the impact of drugs on other people you should be focusing on making sure that any harm from doing so is minimized by:
a. Creating safe markets for the production, distribution, and consumption of all drugs
b. Providing education and health resources to make sure that users of drugs can make informed choices and get help when needed.
There's nothing for me to get over. I can't stop people from using drugs.
However, oversimplified statements made to dazzle, like yours, really tick me. There are many kinds and definitions of a drug, depending on whether you're a pharmacologist, a lawyer, a government, an addict, or just your average simpleton. There's not a single precise definition. I've already stated elsewhere in this thread that people need to jump off the legalization/damnation bandwagons and have some concrete fucking clue about what they're talking about.
Creating safe markets for all drugs? We haven't even been able to do that for pharmaceuticals! How do you suggest we proceed with recreational drugs? Where are consumers supposed to buy it from? What about existing supply-chains? Who oversees them all? What about derivatives? How will you figure out what is actually dangerous? Take a second and read Steve Yegge [1]; I'm sure you already have the answers but maybe he has a better chance of making you think.
I don't know where you come from, but where I live drug users can both make an informed decision before using (being critical thinking beings and all that shit), as well as get guidance and support after actually being addicted. It doesn't help. Sure, educating people about recreational drugs is key, but we don't even know half of what drugs are capable of when it comes to psychotropics. We are missing fundamental links between substance and behaviour, what are we supposed to tell our kids?
Anyway, I might have to put sarcasm tags in the last post, because being humorous or sarcastic really doesn't reach people here. I believe that comments have in fact degraded into YouTube comments, where there is no limit to how idiotic a statement will be taken seriously. And here's me, falling victim to that same behaviour.
You can disagree with legalizing marijuana, and even hate the drug, but don't hate the people who use it.
I personally have never used marijuana, nor ever intend to do so, but I don't hate the people who use it because I don't who they are, or why they use marijuana. The ones who do (that I have heard of) use marijuana for medical purposes.
Say instead that you dislike (or don't approve of) the abuse of marijuana.
Endocannabinoids are fat-soluble chemicals used for local signaling, most notably retrograde signaling among neurons: they can send signals backwards. They're hydrophobic, diffusing well through cell membranes but not traveling well in water. This makes them useful for sending very short-distance signals.
So you hate my girlfriend, who has multiple sclerosis and the only thing that makes her feel better when she's having a flare-up is marijuana? Often times she doesn't want to be high, but does it anyway because it's the only thing that works.
We'll be looking to move to California if this passes. Good to know there will be people leaving to make room for us...
You must really dislike football players, boxers, and others who engage in sports that cause repetitive light trauma to the head. They lose way more brain cells that way.
I think these opinions to have a lot to do with how the public is primed to behave by being exposed to things like TV where a censored message is portrayed and Football is an accepted and popular game and the drugs message is most anti all drugs reguardless of what the individuals giving the message think.
We're born with few enough brain cells as it is, why would you want to kill more of 'em?
If Prop 19 passes I'll be looking to leave California ASAP, because there's nothing that makes me angrier than smelling pot smoke.