PDA

View Full Version : Obama Forgets To Lie About Marijuana



JAD_333
25 Jan 14,, 23:52
Have to agree with BHO on this one.

There only one thing worse than laws that don't make sense, and that's trying to defend them with discredited arguments.




The President Forgets To Lie About Marijuana, And Prohibitionists Are Outraged
Jacob Sullum, Contributor, Forbes Blog
1/24/2014

Prohibitionists were outraged by President Obama’s recent observation that marijuana is safer than alcohol—not because it is not true but because it contradicts the central myth underlying public support for the war on drugs. According to that myth, certain psychoactive substances are so dangerous that they cannot be tolerated, and the government has scientifically identified them. In reality, the distinctions drawn by our drug laws are arbitrary, and marijuana is the clearest illustration of that fact.

“As has been well documented,” Obama told The New Yorker’s David Remnick in an interview published on Sunday, “I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.” When Remnick pressed him to say whether marijuana is in fact less dangerous than alcohol, the president said yes, “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer.”

Judging from survey data, that is not a very controversial position. According to a recent CNN poll, 87 percent of Americans think marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol, and 73 percent say it is less dangerous. Yet Obama’s statement does seem inconsistent with his administration’s stubborn defense of marijuana’s placement on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, a category supposedly reserved for drugs with a high abuse potential that have no recognized medical value and cannot be used safely, even under a doctor’s supervision.

The administration concedes that chemicals in marijuana have medical utility, but it argues that they should be taken in isolation, not by smoking, vaporizing, or ingesting the plant. The administration also maintains that marijuana’s popularity as a recreational intoxicant demonstrates its high potential for abuse—if you define abuse to include all nonmedical use, as the government does.

Both of these claims are debatable, to say the least. But marijuana’s Schedule I status seems especially vulnerable when you consider the safety prong. Alcohol, despite its familiar hazards, can be consumed safely, even without medical supervision. If marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol, it necessarily follows that it also can be consumed safely. And if marijuana does not belong on Schedule I, then by definition it should not be banned.

As you might expect, survey data indicate that people who believe marijuana is safer than alcohol are especially likely to support legalization. In a 2012 survey by Public Policy Polling, 92 percent of respondents who strongly agreed that marijuana is safer supported legalization, compared to 24 percent of those who strongly disagreed. Increased understanding of these drugs’ relative hazards seems to be one of the main factors driving up support for legalization, which according to several recent polls is now favored by most Americans.

You can see why pot prohibitionists reacted with dismay to Obama’s comment—not because it was false but because it was true. As measured by acute toxicity, accident risk, and the long-term health effects of heavy consumption, marijuana is clearly safer than alcohol. That does not mean smoking pot poses no risks, or that drinking is so dangerous no one should ever do it. It simply means that the risks posed by alcohol are, on the whole, bigger than the risks posed by marijuana. So if our drug laws are supposed to be based on a clear-eyed evaluation of relative risks, some adjustment would seem to be in order.

No, no, no, say the prohibitionists. Patrick J. Kennedy, the former Rhode Island congressman who chairs the anti-pot group Project SAM, says, “We take issue with the President’s comparisons between marijuana and alcohol.” Yet Kennedy does not really explain why. Here is the closest he gets: “Two wrongs don’t make a right: just because our already legal drugs may have very dangerous impacts on society it does not mean that other drugs should follow the same path.” The first “wrong,” according to Kennedy, was repealing alcohol prohibition. Having made that mistake, he says, we should not compound the problem by legalizing another recreational intoxicant, even if it is less hazardous than alcohol.

That argument can be challenged on practical and moral grounds. If marijuana is a substitute for alcohol (as some evidence suggests), legalizing it could lead to a net reduction in drug-related harm. And even if you accept the paternalistic premise of the war on drugs, it does not seem fair to treat suppliers of one drug as criminals while treating suppliers of a more dangerous one as legitimate businessmen.

Yet Kennedy’s argument is a rhetorical tour de force compared to the protests lodged by other prohibitionists. Writing in The Washington Times, former Oklahoma congressman Ernest Istook complains that “pro-pot proponents…adopt an extremely narrow definition of marijuana’s dangers by [focusing] solely on whether it is ‘toxic.’” Istook is alluding to the fact that it is fairly easy to consume a fatal dose of alcohol, while there has never been a documented death from a marijuana overdose. That fact does seem pretty important in evaluating the relative risks of these two drugs, but it is not the only consideration. “Pro-pot proponents” also note that marijuana impairs driving ability less than alcohol does and that heavy drinking causes devastating organ damage unlike anything seen with marijuana.

Istook trots out the old canard that “marijuana smoke has significantly more carcinogens than tobacco smoke,” implying that marijuana poses a bigger cancer risk. But the typical pot smoker absorbs much lower doses of combustion products than the typical cigarette smoker does, and the epidemiological evidence linking pot smoking to lung cancer, unlike the evidence linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer, is equivocal. Furthermore, there are other ways to consume cannabis (vaporization and edibles) that do not involve inhaling smoke.

Istook claims “adolescent use of marijuana…causes permanent brain damage”—an unproven assertion based on correlational evidence that does not necessarily indicate a cause-and-effect relationship. Public health officials also warn that adolescent brains may be especially vulnerable to the effects of alcohol. That concern is not usually considered an argument for banning alcohol consumption by adults.

Still not convinced that the president was wrong when he said marijuana is safer than alcohol? He can’t be right, Istook says, since “the official National Drug Control Strategy from drug czar R. Gil Kerlikowske lists marijuana as one of the ‘four major drugs (cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine).’” There you go: Since marijuana is a popular illegal drug, it cannot possibly be safer than alcohol. Istook closes with a sneer that was already old when he was elected to Congress in 1992. If you disagree with him about marijuana’s dangers, he says, you “must be smoking something.”

Simply citing risks posed by marijuana, even if they are well established, does not prove it is more dangerous than alcohol—a basic logical point that the president’s critics do not seem to understand. “President Obama is surrounded by a myriad of experts who have voiced serious concerns about the harms of marijuana,” says the Drug-Free America Foundation, “so either he is seriously ill-informed about the issue or is completely ignoring warnings from his highly esteemed advisors.”

Drug warriors also were irked that Obama, rather than reiterating his opposition to marijuana legalization, seemed curious to see how the experiments in Colorado and Washington turn out. Expressing concern about the racially disproportionate impact of pot prohibition, he told Remnick “it’s important for [legalization] to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.” A few days later, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney emphasized that “the president’s position on these matters hasn’t changed” and that “he’s not endorsing any specific move by a state.” Rather, “he’s talking about the issue of disparities in prosecution of our drug laws that an experiment like this may be addressing.”

Still, Obama’s openness to the possibility that marijuana legalization might be something other than a disaster is too much for those who view the plant as inherently evil. “His laissez-faire attitude about legalization has drug policy and prevention experts scratching their heads in confusion as to why the president will not give clear guidance,” complains the Drug-Free America Foundation. “His lack of a formal position on what he is or is not supporting is an irresponsible move for such a person in the most highly regarded position in this country.”

The drug warriors’ confusion reminds me of that Star Trek episode in which the robed agents of repression who enforce a brutally blissful dictatorship, having been freed from the mind control of the computer that runs their society, wander around crying, “Landru! Guide us!” On the subject of marijuana prohibition, it is long past time we started thinking for ourselves instead of relying on a government that has been lying to us for 77 years.

The President Forgets To Lie About Marijuana, And Prohibitionists Are Outraged - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2014/01/24/the-president-forgets-to-lie-about-marijuana-and-prohibitionists-are-outraged/)

kato
26 Jan 14,, 00:15
So, Forbes is pro-drugs?

Parihaka
26 Jan 14,, 00:24
Forbes, or at least the writer in this case, is rational

S2
26 Jan 14,, 01:23
The laws, at present, are entirely irrational and defy logic. The police certainly know this and it reflects the utter absence of vigor pursuing and apprehending these horrid miscreants. I applaud the president for reaffirming his forthright admission and his own assessment, based upon personal use and a lucid mind, it's functional impact. Negligible in every respect relative to alcohol.

Bigfella
26 Jan 14,, 02:26
Both drugs have their issues, neither should be illegal to use. Lets hope that those places around the world that are moving away from prohibition serve as an example to those jurisdictions still trapped in a punitive mindset.

sated buddha
26 Jan 14,, 07:54
I smoked up in college. Never liked booze all that much. These were always two different and mutually exclusive groups of kids, the twain rarely meeting. But as I grew older I realized that it does in subtle ways affect your work. Plus I really wanted to quit smoking but not smoking up. My elder daughter used to militantly get on my case even since she was really little. Tried various graded quits that never worked. Finally quit cold turkey around 5 years ago. Now if I need to get mellow, I drink. But I would be the first to admit that its not the same. Not even close.

Obama gets my (international) vote of allegiance for this.

tankie
26 Jan 14,, 14:07
How about this one , benefit st was a ch4 prog about people on welfare .

After a tip off and complaints from two Tory MPs, Benefit Street ( James Turner Street ) was raided by the drug squad and six people have now been charged with drug offenses who live on the road..

After two separate undercover reporters last summer went into the Houses of Parliament they found two public toilets tested positive for substantial cocaine residue in the cubicles - 4 private toilets used by MPs only also tested positive for substantial cocaine residue on their counters - 3 private toilets used by the Lords also tested positive for substantial cocaine residue in the cubicles and on the counters - also toilets in 3 bars and one restaurant in The House of Commons all tested positive for substantial cocaine residue - one reporter said that their were signs of drug taking EVERYWHERE, The Drug squad decided no investigation was warranted !! :mad:

So how ironic is it that The House of Commons and The House of Lords are now officially the safest place in Britain to avoid prosecution for dealing and taking class A drugs !!

zraver
26 Jan 14,, 15:13
So having failed to deliver jobs, real student loan reform, lower health care premiums, or reality based hope to millennials he now seeks to pacify them with weed... Does anyone else get the feeling of a failed bunker mentality radiating from him? A third of Americans not working, a genocide in Syria, fundamental rights like freedom of speech under corporate assault, not beign sure which of our erstwhle Afghan or Pakistani allies is more in bed with the Taliban, crushing federal debt, more scandal than a bushel of Nixons,the Obamacare implosion..... I mean seriously Mr. President... with all this going on you pick pot as your fight?

Julie
26 Jan 14,, 15:18
So having failed to deliver jobs, real student loan reform, lower health care premiums, or reality based hope to millennials he now seeks to pacify them with weed... Does anyone else get the feeling of a failed bunker mentality radiating from him? A third of Americans not working, a genocide in Syria, fundamental rights like freedom of speech under corporate assault, not beign sure which of our erstwhle Afghan or Pakistani allies is more in bed with the Taliban, crushing federal debt, more scandal than a bushel of Nixons,the Obamacare implosion..... I mean seriously Mr. President... with all this going on you pick pot as your fight?It's all he has left. Everything else he touched has turned to crap.

tankie
26 Jan 14,, 15:23
It's all he has left. Everything else he touched has turned to crap.

Midas obumma huh ,, same as most politico's , liars / corrupt / selfservatives . :mad:

Bigfella
26 Jan 14,, 16:04
So having failed to deliver jobs, real student loan reform, lower health care premiums, or reality based hope to millennials he now seeks to pacify them with weed... Does anyone else get the feeling of a failed bunker mentality radiating from him? A third of Americans not working, a genocide in Syria, fundamental rights like freedom of speech under corporate assault, not beign sure which of our erstwhle Afghan or Pakistani allies is more in bed with the Taliban, crushing federal debt, more scandal than a bushel of Nixons,the Obamacare implosion..... I mean seriously Mr. President... with all this going on you pick pot as your fight?

Yes. That is precisely what he is doing. There is no possible alternative explanation. There is certainly no possible way that anti-prohibition activists picked up on a few comments in a very long series of interviews & made a song & dance about them. Just could not be. Never happen.:rolleyes:

These articles are the outcome of the interviews cited. They are VERY long & I rapidly lost interest in trying to find the dope comments. I'm sure they are buried in there somewhere. A word of warning. If those few comments produce this sort of response then reading both articles may cause your head to explode.

David Remnick: On and Off the Road with Barack Obama : The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick?currentPage=all)

The Obama Tapes: Outtakes from David Remnick's Interviews with the President : The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/01/the-obama-tapes.html)

Seriously Z, you are way too smart a guy to start launching into barely coherent stream of consciousness & essentially off topic crap like this every time Obama's name is mentioned. Obama isn't the issue here, just a jumping off point to discuss it. We already know what you think about Obama. I'm sure people would much rather hear your thoughts on the issue at hand. I certainly would.

zraver
26 Jan 14,, 16:49
Yes. That is precisely what he is doing. There is no possible alternative explanation. There is certainly no possible way that anti-prohibition activists picked up on a few comments in a very long series of interviews & made a song & dance about them. Just could not be. Never happen.:rolleyes:

These articles are the outcome of the interviews cited. They are VERY long & I rapidly lost interest in trying to find the dope comments. I'm sure they are buried in there somewhere. A word of warning. If those few comments produce this sort of response then reading both articles may cause your head to explode.

David Remnick: On and Off the Road with Barack Obama : The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick?currentPage=all)

The Obama Tapes: Outtakes from David Remnick's Interviews with the President : The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/01/the-obama-tapes.html)

Seriously Z, you are way too smart a guy to start launching into barely coherent stream of consciousness & essentially off topic crap like this every time Obama's name is mentioned. Obama isn't the issue here, just a jumping off point to discuss it. We already know what you think about Obama. I'm sure people would much rather hear your thoughts on the issue at hand. I certainly would.

More than just an interview, its followed with action. First, presidents don't go off the cuff on interviews, its all about packaging a message especially ahead of the state of the Union Address. A president getting whimsical with the New Yorker is the political equivalent of texting while driving. Second, he has instructed his Attorney General to make the issue of pot front an center with Holders announcement of forthcoming banking rules. Thirdly, his support among millennial (those most in favor of legalization) have plummeted. Fourth and finally, this was the same interview where he claimed that his falling support was due to racism not policy differences.

Attorney General Eric Holder: Feds to let banks handle pot money - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/01/holder-feds-to-let-banks-handle-pot-money-181777.html)
Obama Losing Millennials | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366412/obama-losing-millennials-andrew-johnson)

Bigfella
26 Jan 14,, 16:55
SIGH!

Well, I tried.

Doktor
26 Jan 14,, 17:12
DEA Chief Slams Obama For Pot Remarks: Reports (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/25/michele-leonhart-obama_n_4666606.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009)

bonehead
26 Jan 14,, 18:42
A move in the right direction. We are wasting too much time, effort and jail space to lock up small time recreational users. Lets have some sensible laws with weed and move on from this farce.

zraver
26 Jan 14,, 19:42
A move in the right direction. We are wasting too much time, effort and jail space to lock up small time recreational users. Lets have some sensible laws with weed and move on from this farce.

The war on weed is stupid, but telling the attorney general to tell banks to ignore federal banking laws in order for the president to gain a temporary reprieve from falling poll numbers is blew past stupid at ludicrous speed.

bigross86
26 Jan 14,, 20:16
Pot needs to be legalized, taxed and restricted just like alcohol. It's just the most logical way to go at it.

bonehead
26 Jan 14,, 20:55
The war on weed is stupid, but telling the attorney general to tell banks to ignore federal banking laws in order for the president to gain a temporary reprieve from falling poll numbers is blew past stupid at ludicrous speed.

You should worry more about your blind hatred of the president. He has done a lot of things, picked sides and such, knowing full well it was going to affect his polling numbers negatively. If he was worried about poll numbers he would have done this much closer to the next election so any positive effect would have been felt.

Julie
26 Jan 14,, 22:37
Yes. That is precisely what he is doing. There is no possible alternative explanation. There is certainly no possible way that anti-prohibition activists picked up on a few comments in a very long series of interviews & made a song & dance about them. Just could not be. Never happen.:rolleyes:

These articles are the outcome of the interviews cited. They are VERY long & I rapidly lost interest in trying to find the dope comments. I'm sure they are buried in there somewhere. A word of warning. If those few comments produce this sort of response then reading both articles may cause your head to explode.

David Remnick: On and Off the Road with Barack Obama : The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick?currentPage=all)

The Obama Tapes: Outtakes from David Remnick's Interviews with the President : The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/01/the-obama-tapes.html)

Seriously Z, you are way too smart a guy to start launching into barely coherent stream of consciousness & essentially off topic crap like this every time Obama's name is mentioned. Obama isn't the issue here, just a jumping off point to discuss it. We already know what you think about Obama. I'm sure people would much rather hear your thoughts on the issue at hand. I certainly would.If he is going to pander to voters, I just wish he would present a good plan to put Americans back to work, and address immigration. If he cant roll his sleeves up and jump in the pool to do something positive for ALL Americans, I just wish he would keep his mouth shut about trivial things.

TopHatter
26 Jan 14,, 23:31
I've come around to the idea that weed isn't such a problem, it's the pothead zealots that think it's the Second Coming Of Christ and that it'll solve everything from the budget deficit to world hunger.

And if you're anything less than 100% supportive, or even merely cautious about legalization, you'll be accused of being:

1. A booze-chugging lush
2. A wife-beater
3. A pill-popper
4. A shill for "Big Pharma"
5. An Agent of the Government
6. The writer and director of Reefer Madness

Usually all of the above, in that order.

Doktor
26 Jan 14,, 23:35
I've come around to the idea that weed isn't such a problem, it's the pothead zealots that think it's the Second Coming Of Christ and that it'll solve everything from the budget deficit to world hunger.

And if you're anything less than 100% supportive, or even merely cautious about legalization, you'll be accused of being:

1. A booze-chugging lush
2. A wife-beater
3. A pill-popper
4. A shill for "Big Pharma"
5. An Agent of the Government
6. The writer and director of Reefer Madness

Usually all of the above, in that order.

Where does the current POTUS fits?

Bigfella
27 Jan 14,, 02:14
legalizing pot certainly won't solve the world's problems, but the resources wasted in keeping it illegal can be put to better use. It might also offer a temporary relief from Ihavetorantuncontrollablyandofftopiceverytimesomeo nementionsObamaitis. Chill Winston.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7kme3GC9Gs

bonehead
27 Jan 14,, 03:05
I've come around to the idea that weed isn't such a problem, it's the pothead zealots that think it's the Second Coming Of Christ and that it'll solve everything from the budget deficit to world hunger.

And if you're anything less than 100% supportive, or even merely cautious about legalization, you'll be accused of being:

1. A booze-chugging lush
2. A wife-beater
3. A pill-popper
4. A shill for "Big Pharma"
5. An Agent of the Government
6. The writer and director of Reefer Madness

Usually all of the above, in that order.

Insert different things in 1-6 and there you have it! Cookie cutter advancement of special causes. immigration, same sex marriages etc all do the same thing.

As for the weed I don't see any major changes. Those that are going to smoke…already are. One issue is the workplace though. Since Washington gave it a go there have been some "surprised" workers when they failed the UA at the start of a job. I will agree that they are at a disadvantage as weed stays in your system much longer than most drugs but hey, thats life. Do you want to work or get high? Sometimes you have to make a choice.

zraver
27 Jan 14,, 04:56
Ihavetorantuncontrollablyandofftopiceverytimesomeo nementionsObamaitis.

Really?, he instructs the banks to ignore federal law and you think its an uncontrollable reaction on my part? What part of POTUS is supposed to enforce the laws passed by congress and signed in to law did you miss?

JAD_333
27 Jan 14,, 07:49
Z:

The point behind the article is that Obama's reply was out of synch with Federal policy. The DEA and the rest of his administration is on one track, fighting pot, and he is on another track saying that pot is no big deal. Depending on the response he gets, legislation may follow. But I see no reason why it would distract him from bigger issues. The initiative can come from Congress and would only amount to reclassifying pot from a higher schedule drug to a lower level drug. In time, pot may become a commercial product like in Colorado and be taxed to high heaven like booze and tobacco, but I doubt an effort along those lines will rank high on his agenda. I agree with you that he has more important fish to fry, immigration, jobs, budget, etc., but no need to go overboard in your response. After all, Obama answers all sorts of questions, some even more mundane.

President Obama’s reddit AMA: Top five most awesome questions - Innovations - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/president-obamas-reddit-ama-top-five-most-awesome-questions/2012/08/29/d3f2c1aa-f21a-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html)

Bigfella
27 Jan 14,, 09:54
Really?, he instructs the banks to ignore federal law and you think its an uncontrollable reaction on my part? What part of POTUS is supposed to enforce the laws passed by congress and signed in to law did you miss?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7kme3GC9Gs

Doktor
27 Jan 14,, 10:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7kme3GC9Gs

You might consider adding this video as your signature? :insane:

Bigfella
27 Jan 14,, 10:04
You might consider adding this video as your signature? :insane:

It is sorta cool, though I can think of a list of people who could use it ahead of me. :biggrin:

astralis
27 Jan 14,, 14:43
If he is going to pander to voters, I just wish he would present a good plan to put Americans back to work, and address immigration. If he cant roll his sleeves up and jump in the pool to do something positive for ALL Americans, I just wish he would keep his mouth shut about trivial things.

American Jobs Act | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/jobsact)

Immigration | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/immigration)

you might not agree with them, but he HAS plans...

Triple C
27 Jan 14,, 15:53
I wish Sauerkraut can confirm or deny the allegation that drunks pick fights with cops all the time but stoners almost never do.

TopHatter
27 Jan 14,, 16:45
I wish Sauerkraut can confirm or deny the allegation that drunks pick fights with cops all the time but stoners almost never do.

That's the other end of the spectrum:

Stoners never do anything bad, instead they sit around and eat munchies only. They don't break the law or hurt so much as a fly. Ever.
It's also perfectly safe to operate heavy equipment, drive a car, fly a plane or perform major surgery while stoned to the bejesus belt.

Also, pot completely cures cancer. All 200+ kinds of cancer that have different (and possibly multiple) causes, affecting different parts of the body in different ways. Pot can wipe all of them out but "Big Pharma" and "The Man" have been keeping that a secret.

Believe it citizens.

Doktor
27 Jan 14,, 17:00
The only con is your brain ends up fried. But hey, who's gonna complain? ;)

DarthSiddius
27 Jan 14,, 17:24
That's the other end of the spectrum:

Stoners never do anything bad, instead they sit around and eat munchies only. They don't break the law or hurt so much as a fly. Ever.
It's also perfectly safe to operate heavy equipment, drive a car, fly a plane or perform major surgery while stoned to the bejesus belt.

Also, pot completely cures cancer. All 200+ kinds of cancer that have different (and possibly multiple) causes, affecting different parts of the body in different ways. Pot can wipe all of them out but "Big Pharma" and "The Man" have been keeping that a secret.

Believe it citizens.

With my extensive experience dabbling in these dark arts, I would respectfully disagree *** Eating my munchies while laughing hysterically, of course.***

JAD_333
27 Jan 14,, 17:34
The only con is your brain ends up fried. But hey, who's gonna complain? ;)

Like Steve Jobs and the merry crew who created the Mac in 1984????

I hear from some folks that the biggest downside to merry weed comes a few days after, assuming you've stopped using it, and that is a kind of malaise in which you feel more powerless (stupid)...probably a price you pay for dipping into your dopamine pool. Your mood sucks, too. Which all underscores that saying that there are no free rides.

Doktor
27 Jan 14,, 20:50
IDK, maybe it's the origin of the weed, but the stoners I see here usually turn from smart to dumb.

Never seen the reverse process.

omon
27 Jan 14,, 21:00
IDK, maybe it's the origin of the weed, but the stoners I see here usually turn from smart to dumb.

Never seen the reverse process.

may be they were not too smart to begin with and weed has nothing to do with it.?

i never seen a single substance that turn dumb into smart. so there is noting wrong with weed not doing it either. it is dumb to expect that, actually.

Parihaka
27 Jan 14,, 21:05
IDK, maybe it's the origin of the weed, but the stoners I see here usually turn from smart to dumb.

Never seen the reverse process.

Like every type of recreational drug, in moderation and fitness for purpose. Stoned skiing or surfing is awesome, stoned socialising is crap.

Doktor
27 Jan 14,, 21:05
may be they were not too smart to begin with and weed has nothing to do with it.?

i never seen a single substance that turn dumb into smart. so there is noting wrong with weed not doing it either. it is dumb to expect that, actually.

Yep, but turning smart into dumb is what I said.
I rest my case.

omon
27 Jan 14,, 21:10
Yep, but turning smart into dumb is what I said.
I rest my case.

you also said
Never seen the reverse process.

Parihaka
27 Jan 14,, 21:12
That's the other end of the spectrum:

Stoners never do anything bad, instead they sit around and eat munchies only. They don't break the law or hurt so much as a fly. Ever.
It's also perfectly safe to operate heavy equipment, drive a car, fly a plane or perform major surgery while stoned to the bejesus belt.

Also, pot completely cures cancer. All 200+ kinds of cancer that have different (and possibly multiple) causes, affecting different parts of the body in different ways. Pot can wipe all of them out but "Big Pharma" and "The Man" have been keeping that a secret.

Believe it citizens.

Totally get where you're coming from (dude), evangelists are an enormous pain no matter what they're selling

Officer of Engineers
28 Jan 14,, 00:29
Never seen the reverse process.Divorce.

bonehead
28 Jan 14,, 05:31
That's the other end of the spectrum:

Stoners never do anything bad, instead they sit around and eat munchies only. They don't break the law or hurt so much as a fly. Ever.
It's also perfectly safe to operate heavy equipment, drive a car, fly a plane or perform major surgery while stoned to the bejesus belt.

Also, pot completely cures cancer. All 200+ kinds of cancer that have different (and possibly multiple) causes, affecting different parts of the body in different ways. Pot can wipe all of them out but "Big Pharma" and "The Man" have been keeping that a secret.

Believe it citizens.

I will temper that a bit. Many people with cancer lose their appetite and waste away rather quickly. The fun of Chemo. They usually pass the point of no return before any anti cancer therapies get a chance to work. Ironically, the munchies saves lives. Also does it rather cheaply. Weed gives people relief from other intestinal ills that the pharma companies currently can't touch. Lastly, I have to deal with a population of kids who ingest a ton of RX just to chill. Manic depressant, ADHD, paranoid schizophrenia, etc. The side effects are much worse than smoking weed and of course the RX cost much more and is rotting their livers to boot. I have heard that weed can be a good pain suppressant for some things but I don't know if the weed really works or the smoker just gets high enough to the point of not caring about the pain anymore. As for me I would be happy just to have hemp paper and textiles back.

sated buddha
28 Jan 14,, 06:30
There's also something else that stoners apparently do better than boozards. Or so the ladies would have us believe. :whome:

JAD_333
28 Jan 14,, 08:33
There's also something else that stoners apparently do better than boozards. Or so the ladies would have us believe. :whome:


Is there anything we haven't covered yet?

sated buddha
28 Jan 14,, 08:51
Is there anything we haven't covered yet?

Yes. Contrary to the literature doing the rounds, it allegedly makes for better lovers. Unlike with alcohol, which kind of deadens the nerve endings and just makes the woman sore after a point (no pun intended).

Triple C
28 Jan 14,, 14:13
IDK, maybe it's the origin of the weed, but the stoners I see here usually turn from smart to dumb.

Never seen the reverse process.

Chronic drunks are verifiably dumber than their old, sober selves.

Doktor
28 Jan 14,, 14:15
Chronic drunks are verifiably dumber than their old, sober selves.

No disagreement there.

tankie
28 Jan 14,, 14:56
Is there anything we haven't covered yet?

Stoned smokers whisky/vodka drinkers/ peeps ?

TopHatter
28 Jan 14,, 16:20
I will temper that a bit. Many people with cancer lose their appetite and waste away rather quickly. The fun of Chemo. They usually pass the point of no return before any anti cancer therapies get a chance to work. Ironically, the munchies saves lives. Also does it rather cheaply. Weed gives people relief from other intestinal ills that the pharma companies currently can't touch. Lastly, I have to deal with a population of kids who ingest a ton of RX just to chill. Manic depressant, ADHD, paranoid schizophrenia, etc. The side effects are much worse than smoking weed and of course the RX cost much more and is rotting their livers to boot. I have heard that weed can be a good pain suppressant for some things but I don't know if the weed really works or the smoker just gets high enough to the point of not caring about the pain anymore. As for me I would be happy just to have hemp paper and textiles back.

I don't doubt the therapeutic qualities of weed. They should be explored and examined as aggressively as any other treatment.

I despise the feckless claims that pot "cures" cancer and how this (like the hemp argument) is put forth by stoners that likely as not don't give a shit about hemp, cancer or Rx for kids. They want to get high without The Man hassling them.

bonehead
28 Jan 14,, 16:27
Yes. Contrary to the literature doing the rounds, it allegedly makes for better lovers. Unlike with alcohol, which kind of deadens the nerve endings and just makes the woman sore after a point (no pun intended).

But it is the liquor that opens doors…and thighs, in the first place, in addition to lowering the standards.

sated buddha
28 Jan 14,, 16:46
But it is the liquor that opens doors…and thighs, in the first place, in addition to lowering the standards.

To be perfectly honest, there is no bigger turn off than a chick puking just when things are getting hot and steamy. Everything is downhill from there, pun intended. Personally found that most chicks in my time actually used to be curious about pot, while booze was pretty easily accessible. So the guys who could actually score, would eventually score otherwise as well. Once you get past the uncontrollable giggles, its pretty open all the way from there. The other good thing about pot, as a medical anti emetic, is that in spite of copious consumption, there is no puking.

Julie
28 Jan 14,, 17:39
To be perfectly honest, there is no bigger turn off than a chick puking just when things are getting hot and steamy. Everything is downhill from there, pun intended. Personally found that most chicks in my time actually used to be curious about pot, while booze was pretty easily accessible. So the guys who could actually score, would eventually score otherwise as well. Once you get past the uncontrollable giggles, its pretty open all the way from there. The other good thing about pot, as a medical anti emetic, is that in spite of copious consumption, there is no puking.So what you are saying is....when a man needs to "score," it's better for the use of pot than alcohol? Just WOW.

sated buddha
28 Jan 14,, 17:52
So what you are saying is....when a man needs to "score," it's better for the use of pot than alcohol? Just WOW.

Not really Julie. I was responding to bonehead's suggestion that it was booze which made it easier to score. Personally, I've never needed either, one way or the other, though smoking up with a girl was always more intellectually (and otherwise) stimulating than drinking with her. Hope that clarifies.

bonehead
28 Jan 14,, 17:55
To be perfectly honest, there is no bigger turn off than a chick puking just when things are getting hot and steamy. Everything is downhill from there, pun intended. Personally found that most chicks in my time actually used to be curious about pot, while booze was pretty easily accessible. So the guys who could actually score, would eventually score otherwise as well. Once you get past the uncontrollable giggles, its pretty open all the way from there. The other good thing about pot, as a medical anti emetic, is that in spite of copious consumption, there is no puking.

Kind of extreme isn't it? There is a world of difference between 3-4 drinks, and drinking till you puke. BTW if you have to wait until she is puking and nearly passed out then you are walking the line of rape.

sated buddha
28 Jan 14,, 18:03
Kind of extreme isn't it? There is a world of difference between 3-4 drinks, and drinking till you puke. BTW if you have to wait until she is puking and nearly passed out then you are walking the line of rape.

Girls here more often than not cannot hold their drink (neither most men for that matter). It does not take a lot for a girl to puke. Sometimes on something as light as a few beers. 3-4 drinks is a lot.

Doktor
28 Jan 14,, 18:38
Kind of extreme isn't it? There is a world of difference between 3-4 drinks, and drinking till you puke. BTW if you have to wait until she is puking and nearly passed out then you are walking the line of rape.

Rape? Necrophilia came to mind first.

tankie
28 Jan 14,, 19:13
Rape? Necrophilia came to mind first.

And sadism ,,,,,flogging a dead horse .

bonehead
28 Jan 14,, 19:25
Rape? Necrophilia came to mind first.

If they have a pulse….. it aint necro. Kind of per the rape thread. Many girls go to parties, drink and/or take drugs to oblivion then find out in the morning they had sex and cry rape.

bonehead
28 Jan 14,, 19:26
And sadism ,,,,,flogging a dead horse .

Leave the wives out of this.

Doktor
28 Jan 14,, 19:28
If they have a pulse….. it aint necro. Kind of per the rape thread. Many girls go to parties, drink and/or take drugs to oblivion then find out in the morning they had sex and cry rape.

I didn't meant literally. But you already knew that.

sated buddha
28 Jan 14,, 19:38
There was (usually) no passing out. India is not yet a mature drinking nation. And it gets worse when you're talking about kids and teenagers (what we are when we hit college here).

You drink too quickly, you drink on a completely empty stomach, you mix drinks, there are a lot of flashing lights and loud music, and before you know it, kids barely out of school not yet even used to regular beer are puking. Perfectly fine after that with some fresh air and some food, maybe a stiff black coffee. Nowhere close to passing out in drunken stupor. The capacity just isn't there. Yet. And in more cases than not, it never will be.

I guess some of you here probably've jumped to the wrong conclusion (necrophilia, sadism, date rape) based on my previous post about deadened nerve endings. I was referring to the man there, in case it did not come across as such.

That said, its a lot easier mixing something into the drink of an unsuspecting girl, than it is to fool her that the cigarette you're passing to her is plain tobacco.

Doktor
28 Jan 14,, 19:48
It's your assumption assuming what we meant that is wrong :whome:

My comment was for at least one of the partners. Regardless of gender.

sated buddha
28 Jan 14,, 19:54
It's your assumption assuming what we meant that is wrong :whome:

My comment was for at least one of the partners. Regardless of gender.

Alcohol deadens the sensation in both genders. Its just easier all around if its not the one flogging the horse.

Gun Grape
29 Jan 14,, 02:27
The only con is your brain ends up fried. But hey, who's gonna complain? ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FtNm9CgA6U

sated buddha
29 Jan 14,, 04:55
Long term heavy usage of marijuana will have effects on the brain. Yes. But it may be coincidental or even anecdotal, but the smartest guys and girls were always the stoners, not the boozards. And most if not all of them have gone on to have really great careers professionally.

The fact is that pot is a soft drug. I do not want to get into the oft repeated trap of fighting the pot war and pulling booze into the equation, but I get Obama on this. As many pot smokers, past and present, across the world do. Its plain stupid to have pot as an illegal drug, while alcohol is available legally. As are cigarettes.

dan m
29 Jan 14,, 06:07
Mmmmm scrambled eggs. It seems likely that this commercial would make a stoner get the munchies instead of getting him to tweak out.

sated buddha
29 Jan 14,, 07:16
The connection between stoning and getting ravenous is well known. But do not understand why when I was in college and use to stone, my weight was a slim 70-72 kilos, going as low as 68 in my fresher term with all the hardcore physical ragging. But when I quit smoking and pot eventually, my weight shot up to first around 85 kilos for the first 10 years of my marriage, and then 95+ kilos after that. Its only now that I have starved myself to a more respectable normal BMI and a weight of 80 odd kilos. Look and feel younger as a result.

Doktor
29 Jan 14,, 09:00
Maybe you could try to exercise and walk more.:red:

sated buddha
29 Jan 14,, 09:09
Maybe you could try to exercise and walk more.:red:

I gym and swim and cycle regularly, and trek on the weekends. But I also like to eat. A lot.

bonehead
29 Jan 14,, 15:47
Mmmmm scrambled eggs. It seems likely that this commercial would make a stoner get the munchies instead of getting him to tweak out.

That comercial was aimed at meth

Zinja
09 Feb 14,, 03:23
We the most advanced civilization of our species, after careful consideration of everything that has been learnt and observed have come to the conclusion that we are better off as a society with more pot to the people than not. We will be so enriched with pot available at every street corner pharmacy for all sundry to access at their convenience!

Im so glad im on the other side of my curve now, can't wait to be outta here before its too late!

JAD_333
09 Feb 14,, 03:54
We the most advanced civilization of our species, after careful consideration of everything that has been learnt and observed have come to the conclusion that we are better off as a society with more pot to the people than not. We will be so enriched with pot available at every street corner pharmacy for all sundry to access at their convenience!

Exactly. The wheel must be continually reinvented. It's not for no reason that societies have outlawed mind-altering substances in the past. But IMO banning them by law is an imposition on people that, in a perverse way, acts as an incentive to use them. Many people are attracted to what is illicit, a phenomenon we saw during Prohibition. Ideally, people would make their own judgements as to whether such substances would harm them or not. That takes education and moral suasion.


Im so glad im on the other side of my curve now, can't wait to be outta here before its too late!

You can run, but you can't hide. :)

zraver
09 Feb 14,, 04:14
You can run, but you can't hide. :)

Yo can once your past mid point of the median life expectancy.... The grave is always a good hiding place.

JAD_333
09 Feb 14,, 05:09
Yo can once your past mid point of the median life expectancy.... The grave is always a good hiding place.

A perfect place to quote the 'immortal bard'


To die — to sleep.
To sleep — perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub!
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause.

-Shakespeare

dan m
11 Feb 14,, 05:52
That comercial was aimed at meth

Whoops. Then in that case, I imagine that's what meth could do to your brain.