PDA

View Full Version : Should marijuana be legal?


Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 05:09 PM
I think it should. I've never seen the gubment come up with a good reason to have it illegal. And they've been trying to get rid of it for 50 years and can't do it.

runnercyclist
06-19-2005, 05:11 PM
Are you talking about Shegecki? I think he's legal.

Pitt Gorilla
06-19-2005, 05:13 PM
Yes.

Reaper16
06-19-2005, 05:16 PM
Yes, with excise tax.

chief52
06-19-2005, 05:16 PM
It should most definitely be legal. I think the growers, especially those here in Humboldt County, are the ones who really do not want it legalized.

Hydrae
06-19-2005, 05:20 PM
With limitations similar to alcohol, yes.

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 05:32 PM
I think it would improve the quality of the product. There is a lot of shitty weed on the street now.

Katipan
06-19-2005, 05:36 PM
With limitations similar to alcohol, yes.

agreed

|Zach|
06-19-2005, 05:37 PM
I feel ambivalent.

DJay23
06-19-2005, 05:38 PM
IMO as long as it has the "Gateway Drug" label it won't be legalized.

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 05:52 PM
IMO as long as it has the "Gateway Drug" label it won't be legalized.
How stupid.

MichaelH
06-19-2005, 06:01 PM
With the same constrictions as alcohol, I agree as well. I think the millions spent policing it now are wasted when there are far better programs to spend the money on. And the taxes from it would be an added benefit.

chiefs4me
06-19-2005, 06:01 PM
yessss......

AeroSquid
06-19-2005, 06:04 PM
yes

this thread needs moar poll action.

DJay23
06-19-2005, 06:06 PM
How stupid.
To be clear, I think it should be legalized.

Bowser
06-19-2005, 06:19 PM
The Frito Lay people really wish it were legal, as well.

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 06:25 PM
The Frito Lay people really wish it were legal, as well.
Why is that?

Bowser
06-19-2005, 06:27 PM
Why is that?

Like you don't know, stoner.

Or do you eat other things than chips to satisfy the munchies while you are baked?

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 06:33 PM
I was thinking maybe they owned R J Reynolds or something.

Zebedee DuBois
06-19-2005, 06:55 PM
I don't know.

On one hand, it doesn't seem any more harmful than alcohol. On the other hand, I seem to know a lot more people who's lives seem pissed away from pot use than pissed away from alcohol use.

Of course, that's only my judgment of their lives. Maybe that was all they were destined to become.

unlurking
06-19-2005, 06:58 PM
I was thinking maybe they owned R J Reynolds or something.
With all the talk of munchies, first read that as P B J Reynolds.

And actually, I think it is Nabisco that owns RJ Reynolds.

DaKCMan AP
06-19-2005, 06:59 PM
bunch of potheads on this board

luv
06-19-2005, 07:34 PM
I don't know.

On one hand, it doesn't seem any more harmful than alcohol. On the other hand, I seem to know a lot more people who's lives seem pissed away from pot use than pissed away from alcohol use.

Of course, that's only my judgment of their lives. Maybe that was all they were destined to become.
I'm undecided as well. I don't smoke, but I do drink on occasion. I think pot would be more addictive, but then again, I think maybe it's the illegality of it that makes it so popular. Maybe if they legalize it, not as many curious teens (and pre-teens) would try it. I tried drinking before I was 21, but now that I've been old enough to buy it, the curiosity about it is gone.

CosmicPal
06-19-2005, 07:37 PM
bunch of potheads on this board

I've got the munchies, man.

Logical
06-19-2005, 07:37 PM
Yes,

I would still not be using it, but it should be legal.

tk13
06-19-2005, 07:39 PM
Is it me or has Skip started this thread several times before?

chiefs4me
06-19-2005, 07:41 PM
bunch of potheads on this board





:p....ROFL

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 07:42 PM
Is it me or has Skip started this thread several times before?
:shrug: Who me?

Logical
06-19-2005, 07:43 PM
I don't know.

On one hand, it doesn't seem any more harmful than alcohol. On the other hand, I seem to know a lot more people who's lives seem pissed away from pot use than pissed away from alcohol use.

Of course, that's only my judgment of their lives. Maybe that was all they were destined to become.

I could be wrong but I am betting a hell of a lot more people have pissed away their lives and often their families lives through alcholism than as potheads.

milkman
06-19-2005, 07:43 PM
Is it me or has Skip started this thread several times before?

Yeah, but he can't help it.

Pot speeds up the onset of senility. :)

tk13
06-19-2005, 07:45 PM
Yeah, but he can't help it.

Pot speeds up the onset of senility. :)
ROFL Brain cells? I didn't lose no brain cells!

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 07:47 PM
Yeah, but he can't help it.

Pot speeds up the onset of senility. :)
I've always thought a pot high was induced senility. But it wears off. I can't wait for the real thing.

unlurking
06-19-2005, 07:47 PM
Yes,

I would still not be using it, but it should be legal.
I would, but for different reasons then others. A toke or two before bed and I'd be asleep in minutes, rather than sitting up for hours.

Zebedee DuBois
06-19-2005, 07:48 PM
Do the chemicals from MJ linger in the body longer than alcohol does?


Say, you have two civil engineers that like to party - one with booze and the other with pot. Neither partake at work, but on Friday night and through the weekend they let it rip. And maybe one through the weeknights, the booze guy has 2 or 3 beers a night, and the pot guy smokes one joint a night.

Which, if either, is the first to have their work quality diminished?

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 07:55 PM
Do the chemicals from MJ linger in the body longer than alcohol does?


Say, you have two civil engineers that like to party - one with booze and the other with pot. Neither partake at work, but on Friday night and through the weekend they let it rip. And maybe one through the weeknights, the booze guy has 2 or 3 beers a night, and the pot guy smokes one joint a night.

Which, if either, is the first to have their work quality diminished?
With those small quantities I don't think you would see a difference in either one. And I do both.

milkman
06-19-2005, 07:56 PM
I've always thought a pot high was induced senility. But it wears off. I can't wait for the real thing.

Ok, I guess.

Logical
06-19-2005, 08:03 PM
With those small quantities I don't think you would see a difference in either one. And I do both.Pots effects wear off in a couple of hours I would say 8 at most. The kidneys as I recall metabolize alchol completely out of your system in 24 hours though the drunk effect (other than hangover) never seem to last more than 8 hours either. I don't think either is likely to effect a persons work assuming they stop at least 8 hours prior to when they start working.

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 08:08 PM
Pots effects wear off in a couple of hours I would say 8 at most. The kidneys as I recall metabolize alchol completely out of your system in 24 hours though the drunk effect (other than hangover) never seem to last more than 8 hours either. I don't think either is likely to effect a persons work assuming they stop at least 8 hours prior to when they start working.
I've read that the average sized male can metabolize one ounce of alcohol per hour. So it would be long gone before time for work.

saturnknts
06-19-2005, 08:17 PM
being a currently surviving cancer patient who struggled with eating because of the puking i wish it would be legalized if nothing more than for the medical use. i have read that it helps patients eat more and keep it down. i would go three days without food and am seriously considering using when i have to go back on treatments. stupid to go to jail for something that helps someone with a disease.

drinking and drugs arent my thing but to each his own.

legalize it.

Count Alex's Losses
06-19-2005, 08:21 PM
I'm undecided as well. I don't smoke, but I do drink on occasion. I think pot would be more addictive, but then again, I think maybe it's the illegality of it that makes it so popular. Maybe if they legalize it, not as many curious teens (and pre-teens) would try it. I tried drinking before I was 21, but now that I've been old enough to buy it, the curiosity about it is gone.

Pot is not addictive at all, much less than alcohol. The effects wear off much quicker. Some people are angry drunks, some are bitchy drunks - pot, however, makes you hungry and makes you laugh. It's just a matter of choice whether you want to destroy your lungs or your liver.

Alcohol still has uses, though, it turns boring parties into fun parties.

Also, I don't think teens smoke weed out of curiosity - it just feels good and chills you out.

To people who want pot to be legal but taxed heavily, that's not going to work because it's so easy to grow it in your back yard.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 08:24 PM
I could be wrong but I am betting a hell of a lot more people have pissed away their lives and often their families lives through alcholism than as potheads.

That's a pretty unreasonable comparrison. Many people drink regularly, but don't smake -- because it's illegal. So, there are many, many more drinkers than there are social pot smokers. Likewise, there are more alcoholics than potheads. It's as absurd as saying, "there are lots more white people commiting crimes in Johnson County than black people, so obvious white people are naturally more crime-prone than black ones."

All that having been said, I am sort of torn on the issue of pot legalization. On one hand, I don't believe it's any more dangerous or addictive than alcohol, which is legal, so why shouldn't pot be? But, I sort of wonder if it's a slippery slope. I wonder if, as soon as pot is legal, they'll be another drug come along. Say some pharm company creates a version of meth that they can prove is no more addicitive than pot -- should it then be legal?

I guess my general feeling is that it's already outlawed and it doesn't do any real good for anyone (except a few medical cases, in which it should definitely be legal). All it can really do is harm, so why should we put it out there?

Of course, I then argue the flip side with myself: we should put it out there because it's going to be out there anyway and a legal version would probably be safer. And, the same can be said of alcohol and tabacco (they can only do harm, no real good), and they are legal.

So, I'm torn. I don't know. I'm not a smoker, so I guess I don't care.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 08:28 PM
Pot is not addictive at all

That's absoltuley unture. Pot is not likely to cause addiciton in most people, but there absotuley are people who are genetically predisposed to being addicted to it, much like alcoholisim.


Also, I don't think teens smoke weed out of curiosity - it just feels good and chills you out.


I've never quite gotten this, given that for most people it takes at least three or four tries to get high. Why don't more teens give up after they smoke twice and feel nothing? Just curious.


To people who want pot to be legal but taxed heavily, that's not going to work because it's so easy to grow it in your back yard.

What if it's legal to buy it (taxed), but not legal to grow it? What are you going to do, shoot the sherrif?

Logical
06-19-2005, 08:28 PM
That's a pretty unreasonable comparrison. Many people drink regularly, but don't smake -- because it's illegal. So, there are many, many more drinkers than there are social pot smokers. Likewise, there are more alcoholics than potheads. It's as absurd as saying, "there are lots more white people commiting crimes in Johnson County than black people, so obvious white people are naturally more crime-prone than black ones."
...You may have missed why i made that statement in response to Zeb..

... On the other hand, I seem to know a lot more people who's lives seem pissed away from pot use than pissed away from alcohol use.

...

jcroft
06-19-2005, 08:30 PM
And maybe one through the weeknights, the booze guy has 2 or 3 beers a night, and the pot guy smokes one joint a night.

Which, if either, is the first to have their work quality diminished?

Can't imagine either would have his/her work dimisihed unless they were smoking/drinking very late Sunday night. Assuming they smoked/drank on Friday and Saturday night and laid off it on Sunday, they could probably smoke/drink plenty more than 2 or 3 berrs or one joint and be just fine.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 08:30 PM
You may have missed why i made that statement in response to Zeb

No, I saw it -- and I guess what I wrote was aimed at him as much as you, if not moreso.

unlurking
06-19-2005, 08:31 PM
That's absoltuley unture. Pot is not likely to cause addiciton in most people, but there absotuley are people who are genetically predisposed to being addicted to it, much like alcoholisim.

Actually, that's not true either. There are some people predisposed to addiction period, whether it be pot, alcohol, disco, whatever.

An addictiver personality can lead people to be addicted to just about anything.

chiefs4me
06-19-2005, 08:35 PM
being a currently surviving cancer patient who struggled with eating because of the puking i wish it would be legalized if nothing more than for the medical use. i have read that it helps patients eat more and keep it down. i would go three days without food and am seriously considering using when i have to go back on treatments. stupid to go to jail for something that helps someone with a disease.

drinking and drugs arent my thing but to each his own.

legalize it.



gosh...bravo to you for being a survivor.:thumb: I am sorry to read you might have to go back on treatments. Can I ask how old you are? And my prayers to you also.

Count Alex's Losses
06-19-2005, 08:36 PM
That's absoltuley unture. Pot is not likely to cause addiciton in most people, but there absotuley are people who are genetically predisposed to being addicted to it, much like alcoholisim.
This might be true. But from personal experience, I disagree. I've seen a lot of alcoholics and know a lot them, I've never seen anyone addicted to weed. There are some weak-willed people, but they don't smoke to "feel better" like alcoholics or other drug abusers.I've never quite gotten this, given that for most people it takes at least three or four tries to get high. Why don't more teens give up after they smoke twice and feel nothing? Just curious.
Because they've heard it feels good and they want to achieve the same feeling. I guess it could be made a legit argument, but than, curiosity is involved in pretty much everything we do.What if it's legal to buy it (taxed), but not legal to grow it? What are you going to do, shoot the sherrif?
You have to grow it in order to sell it. I guess you could enforce it through licensing, but there are always ways to get a license.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 08:37 PM
Actually, that's not true either. There are some people predisposed to addiction period, whether it be pot, alcohol, disco, whatever.

An addictiver personality can lead people to be addicted to just about anything.

I agree with you. So how is what I said untrue? Some people ARE predisposed to pot addiction. We agree on this, right?

Unsure how what you and I said is different.

Count Alex's Losses
06-19-2005, 08:41 PM
I agree with you. So how is what I said untrue? Some people ARE predisposed to pot addiction. We agree on this, right?

Unsure how what you and I said is different.
You have to define addiction. I'm "addicted" to CP, but that doesn't mean that if I'm sent to Zimbabwe for a year, I'm going to get withdrawals. If someone is addicted to heroin/meth/etc and you take away their drugs, they'll get sick and might actually die. That is not true with pot.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 08:41 PM
This might be true. But from personal experience, I disagree. I've seen a lot of alcoholics and know a lot them, I've never seen anyone addicted to weed. There are some weak-willed people, but they don't smoke to "feel better" like alcoholics or other drug abusers.


Here we go again. You make the point that you know more alcoholics than weed addicts -- unless you can say you know as many snokers and drinkers, then this point is irrelevant. The reason you know more alcoholics is because there are more people drinking than smoking, simple as that.

And if you don't smoke to feel better, then why do you smoke? Is that exactly why anyone smokes, or drinks, or pops pills, or anything else? Because it feels good? Don't pretend you smoke for some kind of self-righteous poetic bullshit reason -- you smoke because it feels good.




Because they've heard it feels good and they want to achieve the same feeling. I guess it could be made a legit argument, but than, curiosity is involved in pretty much everything we do.


Right, so you were inaccurate when you said people don't try it out of curiousity. They do. Nothing wrong with that, but they do.



You have to grow it in order to sell it. I guess you could enforce it through the licensing, but there are always ways to get a license.

Not really. The only way recreational weed would be legal is if major companies grew and produced it in labs and fields that were inspected and tested. It would never be legal to grow it in your backyard and sell it to your friends. Get real.

Logical
06-19-2005, 08:43 PM
I agree with you. So how is what I said untrue? Some people ARE predisposed to pot addiction. We agree on this, right?

Unsure how what you and I said is different.I have never heard of addiction to THC, I believe pot addiction is purely a psychological addiction, which brings us to his point. Some people are psychologically predisposed to addiction not physically.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 08:43 PM
You have to define addiction. I'm "addicted" to CP, but that doesn't mean that if I'm sent to Zimbabwe for a year, I'm going to get withdrawals. If someone is addicted to heroin/meth/etc and you take away their drugs, they'll get sick and might actually die. That is not true with pot.

I'm talking about genetic predisposition to be addicited to substances put into your body. I'm not talking about your addicition to jerking off. That's different. :)

Some people ARE addicted to pot the same people are addicted to meth, heroin, coke, or any other substance. You can deny all you like, but you are simply incorrect. It's not very common, but it absolutley does happen. Do your homework.

Count Alex's Losses
06-19-2005, 08:44 PM
Right, so you were inaccurate when you said people don't try it out of curiousity. They do. Nothing wrong with that, but they do.

No, I was making a point that curiosity plays a role in pretty much everything we do and that it's not the driving cause for teenagers to smoke it; i.e. if pot becomes legal, they won't suddenly stop smoking it.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 08:45 PM
I have never heard of addiction to THC, I believe pot addiction is purely a psychological addiction, which brings us to his point. Some people are psychologically predisposed to addiction not physically.

Read up. I don't really have the time or desire to find some links, but I assure you, there is chemical addiction to pot. It's uncommon, but it exists. There is, as you say, a far greater danger of psycological addiction. But there still is the possibility of checmical addiction. You can read about it all over.

Count Alex's Losses
06-19-2005, 08:46 PM
I'm talking about genetic predisposition to be addicited to substances put into your body. I'm not talking about your addicition to jerking off. That's different. :)

Some people ARE addicted to pot the same people are addicted to meth, heroin, coke, or any other substance. You can deny all you like, but you are simply incorrect. It's not very common, but it absolutley does happen. Do your homework.

Bullshit. THC is not an addictive substance like meth or herion. You don't get physically sick from stopping smoking and you can't overdose on THC.

Logical
06-19-2005, 08:47 PM
...
And if you don't smoke to feel better, then why do you smoke? Is that exactly why anyone smokes, or drinks, or pops pills, or anything else? Because it feels good? Don't pretend you smoke for some kind of self-righteous poetic bullshit reason -- you smoke because it feels good.

.....
Not defending gochiefs here but many people drink and smoke to be social. I hate the taste of alcohol and only drank in social situations. Of course i have rarely drank to the point I was drunk, often nursing a drink or two all night.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 08:48 PM
No, I was making a point that curiosity plays a role in pretty much everything we do and that it's not the driving cause for teenagers to smoke it; i.e. if pot becomes legal, they won't suddenly stop smoking it.

You're right about that, and it's another reason I'm unsure about legalization of pot. Pot is primarily a drug for young people. I don't know the numbers, but I bet 80% of smokers are under age 25. If that's the case, and we make pot legal for people that are 21 and over, what have we done?

1. We have done nothing to change things for those smoker under 21. They still have to sneeak, hide, steal, and buy their weed on the street, giving them less safe versions.

2. We still have to have the anti-weed programs and spend all the money on under age weed prevention, just as we do on alcohol now. It wouldn't save much money.

3. All of the people age 12 to 25 that aren't smoking now because it's not legal are free to start -- we potentially create smokers out of people who might not have been otherwise. Is this a good thing?

Almost no one benefits from this sort of thing. The only people who do are the current pot smokers who are over 21.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 08:49 PM
Bullshit. THC is not an addictive substance like meth or herion. You don't get physically sick from stopping smoking and you can't overdose on THC.

You are very, very uninformed.

Count Alex's Losses
06-19-2005, 08:50 PM
And if you don't smoke to feel better, then why do you smoke? Is that exactly why anyone smokes, or drinks, or pops pills, or anything else? Because it feels good? Don't pretend you smoke for some kind of self-righteous poetic bullshit reason -- you smoke because it feels good.

You're not getting my point. If you stop taking herion - you get sick, you have to keep taking it to feel better (i.e. not sick). Like in Half Baked, people don't suck dick to get $5 to buy a crack hit.

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 08:51 PM
Addicting to me is physiologic dependence by the organism. Withdrawal symptoms occur if the substance is removed. MJ is not physiologically addictive, alcohol and tobacco are. Yet they are legal and MJ isn't. That's insane.

Logical
06-19-2005, 08:52 PM
Read up. I don't really have the time or desire to find some links, but I assure you, there is chemical addiction to pot. It's uncommon, but it exists. There is, as you say, a far greater danger of psycological addiction. But there still is the possibility of checmical addiction. You can read about it all over.

OK here is what I found based on a quick google.

As a drug of addiction, THC is mild, with effects resembling those of caffeine or chocolate rather than classic addictive drugs such as alcohol

jcroft
06-19-2005, 08:52 PM
Not defending gochiefs here but many people drink and smoke to be social. I hate the taste of alcohol and only drank in social situations. Of course i have rarely drank to the point I was drunk, often nursing a drink or two all night.

I don't buy it. People drink in social situation because it lowers their inhibitions and causes them to have more fun -- in other words, it feels good. There are only two reasons to drink or somoke pot:

1. It feels good.
2. You sucummbed to peer pressure.

By "drink," of course, I mean have a few drinks or more. I get that some people like the taste of a particular drink and might have one with dinner or something. That doesn't really qualify as "drinking" here, though.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 08:52 PM
OK here is what I found based on a quick google.

Great. So now you agree with me that it can be addicitive?

Count Alex's Losses
06-19-2005, 08:52 PM
Addicting to me is physiologic dependence by the organism. Withdrawal symptoms occur if the substance is removed. MJ is not physiologically addictive, alcohol and tobacco are. Yet they are legal and MJ isn't. That's insane.

You're misinformed, THC is physically addictive, there is proof

Logical
06-19-2005, 08:53 PM
Addicting to me is physiologic dependence by the organism. Withdrawal symptoms occur if the substance is removed. MJ is not physiologically addictive, alcohol and tobacco are. Yet they are legal and MJ isn't. That's insane.Exactly

jcroft
06-19-2005, 08:53 PM
You're misinformed, THC is physically addictive, there is proof

What he said (when posing as me, albeit very poorly).

Count Alex's Losses
06-19-2005, 08:54 PM
Great. So now you agree with me that it can be addicitive?
OMFG, are you really this stupid? How many cases of people heading to rehab from chocolate addiction have you heard of?

jcroft
06-19-2005, 08:54 PM
Exactly

Wait up -- you just found a quote on your search saying that THC was addicitve like caffiene is. Now you disagree again?

jcroft
06-19-2005, 08:55 PM
OMFG, are you really this stupid? How many cases of people heading to rehab from chocalte have you heard of?

Dude, I've been saying all along that it is mild and uncommon -- but it exists. Just like addicition to caffiene, sugar, and others.

Count Alex's Losses
06-19-2005, 08:55 PM
Dude, I've been saying all along that it is mild and uncommon -- but it exists. Just like addicition to caffiene, sugar, and others.

ROFL

I'm going out. We can continue this later. Peace.

Pants
06-19-2005, 08:56 PM
OMFG, are you really this stupid? How many cases of people heading to rehab from chocolate addiction have you heard of?

Besides chiefs4me?

Logical
06-19-2005, 08:56 PM
Great. So now you agree with me that it can be addicitive?Yes, but I agree more with Skips point, true addiction causes physical withdrawel symptoms, such as sickness, sweats, pain, vomiting, etc. I have never seen that for caffeine, chocolate or MJ.

|Zach|
06-19-2005, 08:57 PM
ROFL

I'm going out.
This cant be true.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 08:57 PM
BTW-

Does it really matter if it's a psycological addiction or a psyiological one? If the addiction causes problems for a person in their life, then what does it matter?

(note: this does not mean that I am changing my tune -- I still know that physical addiction to THC exists).

chief52
06-19-2005, 08:58 PM
Yes, but I agree more with Skips point, true addiction causes physical withdrawel symptoms, such as sickness, sweats, pain, vomiting, etc. I have never seen that for caffeine, chocolate or MJ.

I will not get into the MJ addiction thing, but I have a friend who got real bad headaches when she quit drinking coffee. Yes, she drank a lot of it and quit cold turkey. She got over it, but she said it sucked!

Logical
06-19-2005, 09:01 PM
This cant be true.ROFL

chiefs4me
06-19-2005, 09:01 PM
Not defending gochiefs here but many people drink and smoke to be social. I hate the taste of alcohol and only drank in social situations. Of course i have rarely drank to the point I was drunk, often nursing a drink or two all night.



Lightweight....;)

Logical
06-19-2005, 09:04 PM
BTW-

Does it really matter if it's a psycological addiction or a psyiological one? If the addiction causes problems for a person in their life, then what does it matter?

(note: this does not mean that I am changing my tune -- I still know that physical addiction to THC exists).By definition isn't addiction defined by negative symptoms? Maybe not, but I thought so.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:08 PM
By definition isn't addiction defined by negative symptoms? Maybe not, but I thought so.

Most addiction medicine specialists define addition by whether or not it causes problems in your life. In other words, if you smoke pot once in a while and it never ****s up your work, your relationships, etc., then you probably aren't addicited. But if you smoke and you lose your girlfriend, your job, and your desire to jerk off, then you probably are.

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 09:08 PM
BTW-

Does it really matter if it's a psycological addiction or a psyiological one? If the addiction causes problems for a person in their life, then what does it matter?

(note: this does not mean that I am changing my tune -- I still know that physical addiction to THC exists).
I know first hand THC is not physically addicting. I've smoked it since 1968 yet when I moved to Arkansas, two years ago I lost my source and had to quit smoking it. No problem at all. As to psychological addicition, that is crap. One could become psychologically addicted to video games or anything else. Are you going to ban everything because of it? Of course not.

KChiefsQT
06-19-2005, 09:13 PM
absolutely.

Logical
06-19-2005, 09:14 PM
Most addiction medicine specialists define addition by whether or not it causes problems in your life. In other words, if you smoke pot once in a while and it never ****s up your work, your relationships, etc., then you probably aren't addicited. But if you smoke and you lose your girlfriend, your job, and your desire to jerk off, then you probably are.I do believe we are agreeing.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:15 PM
I know first hand THC is not physically addicting. I've smoked it since 1968 yet when I moved to Arkansas, two years ago I lost my source and had to quit smoking it. No problem at all. As to psychological addicition, that is crap. One could become psychologically addicted to video games or anything else. Are you going to ban everything because of it? Of course not.

So you know first hand that THC is not phsically additive -- FOR YOU. This is totally irrlevleant, since we all agree that it's not addictive for most people. My poin is that there is a small segment of smokers who ARE physically addicted and would have had problems with being cut off.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:16 PM
I do believe we are agreeing.

Thought so. Using that definition of addition, I don't think anyone where can deny that there are pot addicts. I also know plenty of pot smokers who are not addicts. But to say they don't exist is pretty absurd.

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 09:25 PM
Thought so. Using that definition of addition, I don't think anyone where can deny that there are pot addicts. I also know plenty of pot smokers who are not addicts. But to say they don't exist is pretty absurd.
I don't think there is ANYBODY that is physiologically addicted. You're saying some are psychologically addicted and I say that could apply to anything and you can't ban everything. At least that's what I think you're saying.

ENDelt260
06-19-2005, 09:27 PM
I think pot would be more addictive

Your body will develop a physical dependance on alcohol (and a number of other substances). This does not occur with pot.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:28 PM
I don't think there is ANYBODY that is physiologically addicted. You're saying some are psychologically addicted and I say that could apply to anything and you can't ban everything. At least that's what I think you're saying.

I am saying that A SMALL NUMBER of people are PHYSICALLY addictied, and many more are PSYCOLOGICALY addicted, to pot. I have never suggested that either of these two distinct addcitions should be a reason to ban anything.

All I have said is that people are additied to pot, and yet smokers always say it's not addictive.

As I've said before, I am a bit torn on the issue of legalization, but I probably lean towards the idea that it SHOULD be legal.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:30 PM
Your body will develop a physical dependance on alcohol (and a number of other substances). This does not occur with pot.

...in MOST people.

Saulbadguy
06-19-2005, 09:31 PM
Why the hell not? I've never touched the stuff, nor would I, but do not see a reason for it to be illegal.

ENDelt260
06-19-2005, 09:33 PM
It would never be legal to grow it in your backyard and sell it to your friends. Get real.

I can brew beer in my house. If'n I want a couple plants sitting around, I should be allowed.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:35 PM
Here are just a few sites that state that there is such a thing as physiological addition to marajuana. I don't know anything about their credibility, but here they are:

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm
http://www.addictionsresources.com/marijuana.htm
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Published_Articles/Essence.html

They all make the point that there is evidnece to suggest a PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE on pot, although it is rare and only occuring in the most heavy of users.

JimNasium
06-19-2005, 09:36 PM
I'm too lazy to read this thread so if this opinion has already been posted just take that into consideration. I'll preface this by saying I don't smoke nor would I if it were legal. I used to smoke some and I can tell you that nothing takes my initiative away like pot does. It literally causes me to lose interest in anything constructive...but...it is easier for teens today to buy pot than it is alcohol or tobacco. That's just plain silly. Legalize it, tax the shit out of it, control THC levels and drive the criminal element out of it.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:36 PM
I can brew beer in my house. If'n I want a couple plants sitting around, I should be allowed.

I'm not commenting on whether or not you SHOULD be allowed -- only the simple fact that that will NEVER happen in our political climate, so to discuss it is sort of stupid.

ENDelt260
06-19-2005, 09:36 PM
Read up. I don't really have the time or desire to find some links, but I assure you, there is chemical addiction to pot. It's uncommon, but it exists. There is, as you say, a far greater danger of psycological addiction. But there still is the possibility of checmical addiction. You can read about it all over.
I did my research on the subject in college. I could provide the information, but I don't feel like traveling to Rolla to visit my fraternity house and digging up my social ethics file... if it's even still there.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:38 PM
I'm too lazy to read this thread so if this opinion has already been posted just take that into consideration. I'll preface this by saying I don't smoke nor would I if it were legal. I used to smoke some and I can tell you that nothing takes my initiative away like pot does. It literally causes me to lose interest in anything constructive...but...it is easier for teens today to buy pot than it is alcohol or tobacco. That's just plain silly. Legalize it, tax the shit out of it, control THC levels and drive the criminal element out of it.

This tends to be my feeling too, except for on thing: everyone that talks about legalization talks about making it legal for 21 and up or 18 an up. That wouldn't solve the teen problem at all...

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:39 PM
I did my research on the subject in college. I could provide the information, but I don't feel like traveling to Rolla to visit my fraternity house and digging up my social ethics file... if it's even still there.

I say again -- the fact that YOU never got addicted (nor did I) doesn't change the fact that SOME people do. It's not common, but it exists.

ENDelt260
06-19-2005, 09:39 PM
OK here is what I found based on a quick google.

As a drug of addiction, THC is mild, with effects resembling those of caffeine or chocolate rather than classic addictive drugs such as alcohol

I think to classify a caffeine addiction as mild is inaccurate. How many millions of people in this country would find themselves suffering debilitating headaches if you took away their morning coffee?

ENDelt260
06-19-2005, 09:41 PM
Wait up -- you just found a quote on your search saying that THC was addicitve like caffiene is.

Which is horseshit.

KCFANinNC
06-19-2005, 09:41 PM
I'm too lazy to read this thread so if this opinion has already been posted just take that into consideration. I'll preface this by saying I don't smoke nor would I if it were legal. I used to smoke some and I can tell you that nothing takes my initiative away like pot does. It literally causes me to lose interest in anything constructive...but...it is easier for teens today to buy pot than it is alcohol or tobacco. That's just plain silly. Legalize it, tax the shit out of it, control THC levels and drive the criminal element out of it.


Ditto

JimNasium
06-19-2005, 09:41 PM
This tends to be my feeling too, except for on thing: everyone that talks about legalization talks about making it legal for 21 and up or 18 an up. That wouldn't solve the teen problem at all...
It would have to be 21 and up IMO. Teens would still get ahold of it but at least it would be subject to the same restrictions that alcohol is.

ENDelt260
06-19-2005, 09:42 PM
Dude, I've been saying all along that it is mild and uncommon -- but it exists. Just like addicition to caffiene, sugar, and others.
There's nothing uncommon about caffeine addiction.

Zebedee DuBois
06-19-2005, 09:42 PM
I think to classify a caffeine addiction as mild is inaccurate. How many millions of people in this country would find themselves suffering debilitating headaches if you took away their morning coffee?

I would be suffering w/o coffee.

I get headaches on the weekends if I sleep in because I didn't get my caffiene at the required hour.

ENDelt260
06-19-2005, 09:43 PM
Yes, but I agree more with Skips point, true addiction causes physical withdrawel symptoms, such as sickness, sweats, pain, vomiting, etc. I have never seen that for caffeine, chocolate or MJ.
You've never heard of someone suffering physical withdrawal symptons when trying to kick a caffeine habit? Are you serious?

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:43 PM
There's nothing uncommon about caffeine addiction.

You make a good point. I would certainly think that physical dependence on pot is much less common than on caffiene. Still, studies have shown that it exists.

ENDelt260
06-19-2005, 09:44 PM
BTW-

Does it really matter if it's a psycological addiction or a psyiological one? If the addiction causes problems for a person in their life, then what does it matter?

(note: this does not mean that I am changing my tune -- I still know that physical addiction to THC exists).
People can develop a psychological dependence to *anything*. I'm not in favor of outlawing the Internet or pornography to protect a subset of the population who are prone to harming themselves either. Legal paternalism sucks.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:44 PM
You've never heard of someone suffering physical withdrawal symptons when trying to kick a caffeine habit? Are you serious?

I had MAJOR symptoms when I tried it.

Zebedee DuBois
06-19-2005, 09:45 PM
You make a good point. I would certainly think that physical dependence on pot is much less common than on caffiene. Still, studies have shown that it exists.

I believe it exists. I could offer my brother in law as proof.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:45 PM
People can develop a psychological dependence to *anything*. I'm not in favor of outlawing the Internet or pornography to protect a subset of the population who are prone to harming themselves either. Legal paternalism sucks.

When did I suggest that addiction should be a defining factor in whether or not something should be legal?

I certainly do believe that physical dependce on pot exists, as well as psycological addiction, but I don't think that has anything to do with whether or not it should be legal. I tend to lean towards pro-legalization.

However, there is one interesting point that no one is bringing up in regards to legalization:

POT IS ILLEGAL.

As such, those who are pro-pot are going to have to come up with a good reason why it should be legal. Instead, you are sitting back expecting people to tell you why it should be illegal. If you want it legalizaed, you're going to have to come up with a reason, because it's already illegal.

Getting a law taken off the books is a LOT harder than getting one added.

Good luck.

CosmicPal
06-19-2005, 09:46 PM
I did my research on the subject in college. I could provide the information, but I don't feel like traveling to Rolla to visit my fraternity house and digging up my social ethics file... if it's even still there.

I'll help. I've been looking for this in my files for years. I finally discovered it the other day. I'll quote portions of this article, I published during college, on mandatory sentencing and drugs:

"...but in conjunction with the Reagen Administration's War on Drugs campaign in the 1980's, mandatory sentencing laws on non-violent crimes certainly took a new role. "An American Bar Association study found that arrests for drug offenses rose by 24 percent from 1985 to 1991 although surveys showed that drug use actually dropped from 12 percent to 6 percent.."

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 09:47 PM
Here are just a few sites that state that there is such a thing as physiological addition to marajuana. I don't know anything about their credibility, but here they are:

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm
http://www.addictionsresources.com/marijuana.htm
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Published_Articles/Essence.html

They all make the point that there is evidnece to suggest a PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE on pot, although it is rare and only occuring in the most heavy of users.
I think you present your point well, but I've been watching this go on for more than 30 years. Every time one of those phony "studies" show ill effects of MJ, the NORML people debunk the "studies" as flawed. The Gubment doesn't even try to use the "studies" anymore.

ENDelt260
06-19-2005, 09:48 PM
This tends to be my feeling too, except for on thing: everyone that talks about legalization talks about making it legal for 21 and up or 18 an up. That wouldn't solve the teen problem at all...
Sure it would. The reason pot is easier for teens to get a hold of than alcohol is because at some point the alcohol has to be purchased from a legitimate source. No black market pot dealer cards his customers.

chief52
06-19-2005, 09:49 PM
People can develop a psychological dependence to *anything*. I'm not in favor of outlawing the Internet or pornography to protect a subset of the population who are prone to harming themselves either. Legal paternalism sucks.

I totally agree with this. Because someone does can not handle X, then X should be taken away. I hate that train of thought. The company where I work uses that logic. " Joe cut his finger off using this tool so this tool is no longer approved. " Screw that...deal with Joe. If he would have used it correctly he would not have gotten hurt.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:51 PM
I think you present your point well, but I've been watching this go on for more than 30 years. Every time on of those phony "studies" show ill effects of MJ, the NORML people debunk the "studies" as flawed. The Gubment doesn't even try to use the "studies" anymore.

You may be right. i don't know. I know the studies exist. Every source is slanted one way or another. It's pretty hard to tell who to believe when you're a non-smoker that doesn't really care.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:52 PM
Sure it would. The reason pot is easier for teens to get a hold of than alcohol is because at some point the alcohol has to be purchased from a legitimate source. No black market pot dealer cards his customers.

Well, that's a good point. But still, most of those teens would still be getting their pot illegaly, one way or the other.

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 09:54 PM
I am saying that A SMALL NUMBER of people are PHYSICALLY addictied, and many more are PSYCOLOGICALY addicted, to pot. I have never suggested that either of these two distinct addcitions should be a reason to ban anything.

All I have said is that people are additied to pot, and yet smokers always say it's not addictive.

As I've said before, I am a bit torn on the issue of legalization, but I probably lean towards the idea that it SHOULD be legal.
Show me even ONE person that is physiologically addicted to THC. I don't think you can do it.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:54 PM
I totally agree with this. Because someone does can not handle X, then X should be taken away. I hate that train of thought. The company where I work uses that logic. " Joe cut his finger off using this tool so this tool is no longer approved. " Screw that...deal with Joe. If he would have used it correctly he would not have gotten hurt.


No one is using that train of thought. No one said that addiction should be a defining factor in legalization.

And also...you say, "Because someone does can not handle X, then X should be taken away." New flash: it's ALREADY been taken away. You need a reason to get it back, not a reason why it shouldn't be taken away.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:55 PM
Show me even ONE person that is physiologically addicted to THC. I don't think you can do it.

You're right. I only really hang out with one pot smoker, and she is most definitely not addicted. All I said is "studies have shown..." -- and they have. If you don't believe those studies, so be it.

JimNasium
06-19-2005, 09:56 PM
Show me even ONE person that is physiologically addicted to THC. I don't think you can do it.
I'm pretty sure that you are you filthy pot head.

Inspector
06-19-2005, 09:57 PM
It's not going to be legal. Too many paychecks are dependant on it being illiegal.

I do not want to control anyone else beyond assuring they do not hurt anyone else or hurt anyone else's property.

I can't figure out why it should be illegal beyond the money aspect and people having a desire to control other people.

If you don't want to be told what to do in the privacy of your own home, you should not be in favor of these assinine laws. IMO.

If you are in favor of these assinine laws, then I suspect you don't mind being told how to live your life.

Oh - and I'm totally for locking up anyone who harms another person or another person's property - but nobody else. Period. That's really all we need. Again - IMO.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 09:59 PM
It's not going to be legal. Too many paychecks are dependant on it being illiegal.

I do not want to control anyone else beyond assuring they do not hurt anyone else or hurt anyone else's property.

I can't figure out why it should be illegal beyond the money aspect and people having a desire to control other people.

If you don't want to be told what to do in the privacy of your own home, you should not be in favor of these assinine laws. IMO.

If you are in favor of these assinine laws, then I suspect you don't mind being told how to live your life.

Oh - and I'm totally for locking up anyone who harms another person or another person's property - but nobody else. Period. That's really all we need. Again - IMO.

This is pretty much my opinion, too. I don't think legalization will happen in our lifetime. It's kind of silly to even discuss it. I tend to think it shoud be legal, but I realize that none of the reason why it should be legal are powerful enough to outweigh the fact that it's already been banned.

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 10:00 PM
You may be right. i don't know. I know the studies exist. Every source is slanted one way or another. It's pretty hard to tell who to believe when you're a non-smoker that doesn't really care.
Agreed. The gubment used to commission these studies to try to justify keeping pot illegal. Of course the results were always anti MJ. But NORML always replicated the "studies" and got different results. That shit went on for 20+ years until the gubment gave up. My question is why did they outlaw it without a reason?

jcroft
06-19-2005, 10:03 PM
My question is why did they outlaw it without a reason?

It's an interesting question, but an irrelevant one. It's very, very difficult to get a law taken off the books. And the goverment found out that it's impossible to retract something that has once been legal in the prohibition days, so they're going to do all they can to keep it illegal.

It'll never happen, whether it should or not.

ENDelt260
06-19-2005, 10:10 PM
Well, that's a good point. But still, most of those teens would still be getting their pot illegaly, one way or the other.
Of course they would. Just like teens now still get alcohol.

But, to suggest the problem wouldn't be mitigated at all is inaccurate.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 10:11 PM
Of course they would. Just like teens now still get alcohol.

But, to suggest the problem wouldn't be mitigated at all is inaccurate.

Alright, I rescind that statement then.

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 10:12 PM
You've never heard of someone suffering physical withdrawal symptons when trying to kick a caffeine habit? Are you serious?
I hate coffee. I think it's vile. But I went to morning coffee as a social event for more than a year and drank that nasty shit every day. I put salt in it to neutralize the acid instead of sugar to mask the acidic taste. I took a lot of grief for that. But when the coffee clatch broke up I walked away from coffee cold turkey and never noticed the difference.

ENDelt260
06-19-2005, 10:13 PM
This is pretty much my opinion, too. I don't think legalization will happen in our lifetime. It's kind of silly to even discuss it. I tend to think it shoud be legal, but I realize that none of the reason why it should be legal are powerful enough to outweigh the fact that it's already been banned.

That's the second time you've dismissed a discussion topic as silly because, in your opinion, it was unlikely to be realized.

Every discussion about marijuana legalization carries with it the possiblity of causing a participant to stop and really examine the issues they may not have previously. If a conversation leads to someone actually thinking and questioning the world around them, that's not silly. That's productive.

ENDelt260
06-19-2005, 10:15 PM
It's an interesting question, but an irrelevant one.

Actually, it's VERY relevant. Too many people just accept laws as the way things are without ever questioning WHY.

Logical
06-19-2005, 10:15 PM
You've never heard of someone suffering physical withdrawal symptons when trying to kick a caffeine habit? Are you serious?

Brian,

I qualified it by saying "true addiction causes physical withdrawel symptoms, such as sickness, sweats, pain, vomiting, etc....

So no I have never seen those types of symptoms. The worst I know of is people complaining of headaches and being tired most of the time. I don't consider those very serious symptoms.

ENDelt260
06-19-2005, 10:18 PM
I hate coffee. I think it's vile. But I went to morning coffee as a social event for more than a year and drank that nasty shit every day. I put salt in it to neutralize the acid instead of sugar to mask the acidic taste. I took a lot of grief for that. But when the coffee clatch broke up I walked away from coffee cold turkey and never noticed the difference.
You're gonna notice withdrawal symptoms more in the type of person that drinks multiple cups of coffee in the morning, possibly all day long... or moves on to sodas later in the day. There's a million stories out there about the unpleasantness those folks experienced trying to stop.

Logical
06-19-2005, 10:18 PM
I think to classify a caffeine addiction as mild is inaccurate. How many millions of people in this country would find themselves suffering debilitating headaches if you took away their morning coffee?

Debilitating? None of the people I know that have stopped caffeine suffered anything even close enough to debilitating to make them miss work. To me if you don't even miss work it is not debilitating.

ENDelt260
06-19-2005, 10:18 PM
Brian,

I qualified it by saying "true addiction causes physical withdrawel symptoms, such as sickness, sweats, pain, vomiting, etc....

So no I have never seen those types of symptoms. The worst I know of is people complaining of headaches and being tired most of the time. I don't consider those very serious symptoms.
While a headache often isn't serious, it's certainly a physical symptom.

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 10:20 PM
I'm pretty sure that you are you filthy pot head.
Do you wanna fight?

Nzoner
06-19-2005, 10:23 PM
I used to smoke some and I can tell you that nothing takes my initiative away like pot does. It literally causes me to lose interest in anything constructive...

While I know this to be true with some people I know pot has never done that to me.In fact I've gotten some of my better business ideas while high.

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 10:25 PM
You're gonna notice withdrawal symptoms more in the type of person that drinks multiple cups of coffee in the morning, possibly all day long... or moves on to sodas later in the day. There's a million stories out there about the unpleasantness those folks experienced trying to stop.
Probably so. I did my share of cocaine daily in the 80's and never got addicted yet they say it is highly addictive. It wasn't for me. Pot isn't for me either. But cigarettes and alcohol have me by the ass and always will. Those are among the most addictive substances on earth.

chief52
06-19-2005, 10:27 PM
No one is using that train of thought. No one said that addiction should be a defining factor in legalization.

And also...you say, "Because someone does can not handle X, then X should be taken away." New flash: it's ALREADY been taken away. You need a reason to get it back, not a reason why it shouldn't be taken away.

I was agreeing with Endelt on his specific quote, but did not mean to imply anything as to your arguments. Carry on...

ENDelt260
06-19-2005, 10:29 PM
Probably so. I did my share of cocaine daily in the 80's and never got addicted yet they say it is highly addictive. It wasn't for me. Pot isn't for me either. But cigarettes and alcohol have me by the ass and always will. Those are among the most addictive substances on earth.
I don't think I could stand to do coke every day. I always feel like absolute shit the next day, and my sinuses might be f*cked for a few days depending on how stomped on the shit was.

Sure is fun while you're high, though.

Inspector
06-19-2005, 10:32 PM
Taco John wrote this in a thread in the political forum. While I don't agree with his football takes, I have to give him credit for a well stated thought - especially the last couple of sentences.

"It's never going away. Never. People will always look for an escape. Some will choose booze. Some will choose religion. Some will choose dirt bikes. Some will choose weed. No matter which of these you make illegal, there will always be people doing it. That's because man's inherent nature is to be free, to make their decisions, and live by them. Tyranny of the government will never change that.\

CosmicPal
06-19-2005, 10:34 PM
I don't think I could stand to do coke every day. I always feel like absolute shit the next day, and my sinuses might be f*cked for a few days depending on how stomped on the shit was.

Same here. Years ago, I used to do a lot of it, but never felt like doing it every day. I didn't have a problem with my sinuses until the end...I don't do it anymore- it's just not as fun as it used to be, but now a simple line will give my sinus allergies for a couple of weeks.

ENDelt260
06-19-2005, 10:36 PM
I don't do it anymore- it's just not as fun as it used to be, but now a simple line will give my sinus allergies for a couple of weeks.

If one line f*cked me up that bad I wouldn't touch the stuff either. Ick.

CosmicPal
06-19-2005, 10:36 PM
In fact I've gotten some of my better business ideas while high.

Uh huh. The pizza-in-a-cup bizness was a great idea.

Katipan
06-19-2005, 10:40 PM
If you inhale deeply EnDelt you should be able to smell your way here.

Nzoner
06-19-2005, 10:42 PM
Uh huh. The pizza-in-a-cup bizness was a great idea.

I didn't say they were all a success.

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 10:42 PM
That's the second time you've dismissed a discussion topic as silly because, in your opinion, it was unlikely to be realized.

Every discussion about marijuana legalization carries with it the possiblity of causing a participant to stop and really examine the issues they may not have previously. If a conversation leads to someone actually thinking and questioning the world around them, that's not silly. That's productive.
Yep and that is why I posted the thread. Every time the topic comes up we convert a couple of folks who were laboring under false information they heard 15 years ago. Well, that and I knew it would go well over 100 replies and liven up a dead Sunday afternoon.

CosmicPal
06-19-2005, 10:43 PM
If one line f*cked me up that bad I wouldn't touch the stuff either. Ick.

The funny thing is- I was doing it A LOT when I was in KC. The thing that made me stop for good for a long time was when I picked up an amazingly beautiful and hip gal and had her drive me back to my place. I'd been partying all day, and on the way home she's driving and I'm trying to do lines on a magazine on the glove compartment when she swerved and made me spill coke everywhere. I screamed at her, "You phucking C*UNT!" Bleep, bleep, bleep, every freakin' curse word ever used in the English language and more...She dropped me off at my place and told me, "..to get a phucking life..."

I did...at least for awhile.

Katipan
06-19-2005, 10:45 PM
The funny thing is- I was doing it A LOT when I was in KC. The thing that made me stop for good for a long time was when I picked up the amazingly beautiful and hip gal and had her drive me back to my place. I'd been partying all day, and on the way home she's driving and I'm trying to do lines on a magazine on the glove compartment when she swerved and made me spill coke everywhere. I screamed at her, "You phucking C*UNT!" Bleep, bleep, bleep, every freakin' curse word ever used in the English language and more...She dropped me off at my place and told me, "..to get a phucking life..."

I did...at least for awhile.

Don't feel bad. Every coke whore has this exact same story.

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 10:49 PM
I don't think I could stand to do coke every day. I always feel like absolute shit the next day, and my sinuses might be f*cked for a few days depending on how stomped on the shit was.

Sure is fun while you're high, though.
I didn't do it EVERY day but at least 3-4 times a week. I did small lines and always quit before 8 PM so I could sleep. It is possible to stay on coke daily but it is much easier with meth. And Waaaaay cheaper.

saturnknts
06-19-2005, 10:57 PM
gosh...bravo to you for being a survivor.:thumb: I am sorry to read you might have to go back on treatments. Can I ask how old you are? And my prayers to you also.

sent in pm as well, since this is off topic

36yo now

diagnosed in march 2002 with non hodgkins lymphoma. 6 months of chemo. not gone, not forgotten, just watching and waiting. unfortunately i think dr thinks something is flaring up again. have to go in for more testing in august. :(

thank you for your prayers.

tim

excessive
06-19-2005, 11:03 PM
Show me even ONE person that is physiologically addicted to THC. I don't think you can do it.

Hello, my name is excessive. I am a mariholic. I've been sober two weeks now. It hasn't been easy

The first day I was fine, though I found myself cleaning dirty ashtrays, sifting through butts and ashes, looking for roaches and other treasures like stems and seeds to be sifted and mined. For a day I was fine.

I awoke the next morning, drank my coffee, but was missing my morning toke. Off to the garage I went to scour the floor for droppings and stray buds that might have fallen amongst the litter and spider webs. My hands shook and my vision faded in and out. No luck.

Desperate, I went to my trusty pipe and scraped tar from the bowl and held the screen under my lighter, inhaling the acrid smoke, foul and black from oil. I began to calm. I was fine, for a moment.

Afternoon came, and my desperation returned. I began to pace, agitated and unable to think of anything but my addiction. Yes, my addiction. Then I remembered the bud which had fallen between the seats of my car. Luckily, I hadn't cleaned it in the two years since that fateful day. I shook with excitement.

After removing the seat and pulling up the carpet, I found her, kind bud that she was. I vowed to make it last, to eek out one hits as long as I could, but my addiction took hold. Once starting I could not stop. She burned brilliant, but I wept, for I was again dry, and I knew darkness was but hours away.

I feasted on HoHos, holed up in my den, and awaited nightfall. Slumber was my friend, for awhile, but I awoke at 2 a.m. craving respite from the aching in my brain and the gnawing in my stomach. Out of options, I began to walk the streets, waving and nodding at passing cars in hopes of friendly gestures, but my gaunt and desperate appearance scared off all but the most deviant.

A car stopped. I shook uncontrollably, my body dripped in sweat.

My shame now overcomes me and I can't continue. Thankfully, such was my regret for my fall, for my debasement driven by the devil weed, that for the last twelve days I've stayed lock in my house, determined to go cold trukey and break my demon. I shan't describe the horror. Suffice to say, without internet poker and porn, without my lurking on bulliten boards of ill repute, I probably wouldn't be here writing this.

Scoff if you want. Say marijuana isn't addictive, but I offer wretched self in example. My name is excessive. I am a mariholic.

Skip Towne
06-19-2005, 11:08 PM
Uh huh. The pizza-in-a-cup bizness was a great idea.
Well, if you had let the customer make their own pie the results may have been different. You gotta think these things through.

Pants
06-19-2005, 11:30 PM
Jesus christ. Some these coke stories are disturbing. Ya'll are some corrupt mother****ers.

Ari Chi3fs
06-19-2005, 11:31 PM
With Vaporizers such as Vapir, it eliminates all the carcinogens, thus making it more viable for medicinal purposes...

I dont smoke pot anymore... or cigarettes. Haven't in awhile. However, I have partaken of pot vapor... much cleaner experience overall.

That being said, it isnt the bud at the top of the plant that keeps marijuana illegal. It is HEMP that is keeping it illegal. Too many lobbyist have too much to lose if HEMP were legal.

The plant is one of God's finest inventions, yet the conservative christians in power refuse to allow it to prosper.

Pants
06-19-2005, 11:34 PM
That's the second time you've dismissed a discussion topic as silly because, in your opinion, it was unlikely to be realized.

Every discussion about marijuana legalization carries with it the possiblity of causing a participant to stop and really examine the issues they may not have previously. If a conversation leads to someone actually thinking and questioning the world around them, that's not silly. That's productive.

Whoa, ENDelt's gettin' all serious n' shit. This must REALLY be heavy.

jcroft
06-19-2005, 11:48 PM
That's the second time you've dismissed a discussion topic as silly because, in your opinion, it was unlikely to be realized.

Every discussion about marijuana legalization carries with it the possiblity of causing a participant to stop and really examine the issues they may not have previously. If a conversation leads to someone actually thinking and questioning the world around them, that's not silly. That's productive.

I actually agree with you, and if I didn't I wouldn't have participated in the discussion. I guess what I really meant to say was, "it's silly to think we really have a chance at changing things" -- because we don't.

It's good mind candy, though.

ENDelt260
06-20-2005, 12:15 AM
Whoa, ENDelt's gettin' all serious n' shit. This must REALLY be heavy.
Sorry 'bout that. I'll resume my regular diet of dick and fart jokes shortly.

Count Alex's Losses
06-20-2005, 12:17 AM
Extraordinaire.

BigMeatballDave
06-20-2005, 12:26 AM
This may have already been said,(Haven't gone thru the thread, yet) but if Alcohol is legal, why not marijuana. I don't use anymore, nor do I drink. I know from expirience(CPsp.) that a pothead is more fun to be around than a drunk...

Katipan
06-20-2005, 12:46 AM
I actually think people will get sick of dying from cigarettes. In my lifetime; if I dont have a Rick James summer and lower my life expectancy, I believe I'll see the legalization of pot. Certainly before my kids die.

ENDelt260
06-20-2005, 01:01 AM
I'd expect to see at least decriminalization in my lifetime. I don't think outright legalization is impossible, though. Some will laugh and call me stupid for that... but, I'm sure fifty years ago people would've laughed and called you stupid if you suggested one day it would be illegal to smoke cigarettes in bars.

luv
06-20-2005, 02:28 AM
I'd expect to see at least decriminalization in my lifetime. I don't think outright legalization is impossible, though. Some will laugh and call me stupid for that... but, I'm sure fifty years ago people would've laughed and called you stupid if you suggested one day it would be illegal to smoke cigarettes in bars.
Nice lookin' deck ya got there.

alanm
06-20-2005, 03:05 AM
The answer to Skips question is Yes!
It's late and I don't want to list the reasons why so I'll just leave it at that. :p

hbkeay
06-20-2005, 01:31 PM
I actually agree with you, and if I didn't I wouldn't have participated in the discussion. I guess what I really meant to say was, "it's silly to think we really have a chance at changing things" -- because we don't.

It's good mind candy, though.

I used to live in Columbia, MO, and as many of you know, we passed an initiative that makes Columbia cops powerless to prosecute marijuana offenses. Basically, its decriminalization and makes possession of less than 35 grams (oz. and a quarter) a $50 to $200 fine. Point is, we can change things on a local level, and that is exactly how we'll make pot legal. FIRST, make it legal for medicinal use and PLEASE let the government do a study on it! NEXT, decriminalize. FINALLY, legalize it and see a truly free America.

HC_Chief
06-20-2005, 01:49 PM
No reason it shouldn't be.

Count Alex's Losses
06-20-2005, 01:52 PM
No reason it shouldn't be.

THC_Chief, heheh.

go bowe
06-20-2005, 01:56 PM
THC_Chief, heheh.tee hee...

uncharacteristic wit for you, dear boy...

good show, good show indeed... :clap: :clap: :clap:

HC_Chief
06-20-2005, 01:58 PM
THC_Chief, heheh.

Nice :D
FWIW I don't partake