Great article about successful weed smokers

[DankNuggets]

what gets me is the anti-drug propaganda that is fully funded by our government. It's completely full of lies, and they think that they can sell it to our kids (who are smarter than we were, and we're smarter than our parents, who are pushing this crap--so they're probably even ahead of us in the ability to smell bullshit).

Look at the hilarious "above the influence" commericals. Lord I love the current one, where the kid gets so stoned "he lets his friends draw on his face". WTF kinda wool are we trying to pull here? Literally anyone who's ever been to a party in high school knows that doesn't happen when you get high-- it happens when you get drunk. Yet look at the anit-drinking commercials... wait, they're aren't any besides the "under 21" commercials. Why? Because alcohol's only bad for you if you're "under 21" whereas weed is bad for you all the time according to the government.

Let's ask our awesome surgeon general (aka puppet of the state) who's decreed that weed has no medicinal value. Also the same guy who's telling us that there's no "safe" amount of cigarette smoke (what a farce! yeah it's not good for you, but to say there's no "safe" amount would mean that 100% of the time you will not be "safe" after using it...). Also the guy who says alcohol is OK for adults, but it messes with the development of teenagers (won't argue that, just the age cutoff) so the law is set at 21. Doesn't mention you can kill yourself that very day you turn 21, especially if you have no experience with it.

Let's take it a step further--because it's illegal, that means that it's not even OK to try it! Even though it's obvious that it can't hurt you from one (or one million) uses, the government must find a way to convince you to never try it (or you will realize they're lying to you). Thus they ingrain our youth with the "gateway" theory (who honestly tries pot before alcohol or tobacco or even sex?) that they will inevitably try harder drugs. It's kinda true, only the "gateway" is the realization of the fallacy the government feeds us by lying saying it's bad. Once somone tries it and sees that it is indeed not deadly or harmful, they're probably more likely to try other substances that the government told them was harmful.

it's not even a question of "trying pot" as that's about as ridiculous an ascertation you can propose to someone who's been "trying" it daily for years and years. Try telling it to someone who's done it once, even they'll disagree. So basically the only people agreeing with the statement are those that have yet to test it.





I mean if you were the president, governor, a congressman, a teacher, whoever... what would you say to a child who asks you why marijuana is illegal, but alcohol and tobacco are regulated, legal industries? Add to that marijuana has caused infinitely fewer deaths. Add to that marijuana has significant medicinal uses. Add to that it's a safer alternative to alcohol/tobacco. Add to that it's better for the environment to grow and process marijuana than to grow and process tobacco and alcohol. Add to that the main source of criminal financing comes from drug sales, and the most popular illicit drug is marijuana. Add to that the thousands incarcerated and processed for marijuana crimes (counter the retarded lets make murder legal argument with common sense). Add to that the loss of tax revenue from the billions upon billions of dollars moved for marijuana.

I mean, when you look at it, how can you even begin to defend the continued prohibition of marijuana, based on stastically data surronding it's consumption today, and the historical impact of prohibition on any substance?

[PaulOakenfold]

I bet the article on successful non-weed smokers would be a bit longer.

Or the article on unsuccessful weed smokers.

[TagMor]

Where in the above does it say "abuse" or "abuser" or even "more than casual user"? Where? Am I missing some subtext? Let's break it down, sentence by sentence, because I'm really lost as to how you got to where you are:

According to medterms.com Substance Abuse can be defined as:

1. Recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions or expulsions from school; neglect of children or household)

2. Recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired by substance use)

3. Recurrent substance-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for substance-related disorderly conduct

4. Continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences of intoxication, physical fights)

The stereotypes mentioned can all be characterised by those definitions. Further, if you were to ask anyone (who isnt biased due to their own personal habits), if those stereotypes would constitute "abusers" they would most likely say yes.

Would you agree that there are drinkers, then there are alcoholics? Of course you would--not everyone that drinks does so to excess. To say anything different is, well, retarded.

Sure, but abusive use of a substance is when it effects other important aspects of one's life. Let me break it down for you..

Stereotype 1: An unemployed porno addict, sitting in his parents’ basement, playing video games, eating Lucky Charms out of the box with one hand while he lazily scratches his balls with the other.
He has no job.
He is dependent on his parents.
He is lazy.

Stereotype 2: A dread-lock having, patchouli oil smelling, tie-die wearing, Phish listening, hula-hoop twirling space cadet.
He doesnt have a firm grip on reality.

Stereotype 3: A burger flipping, acne having, socially inept, friendless loser.
He withdraws from social interaction, in favour of getting high.

NOWHERE does it say ANYTHING about abuse.

No but it describes it pretty well, as I have demonstrated above.

In fact scientists are arguing that it might even be the link to curing cancer, if only it was legal for them to do some research on it (but that would suck for all those pharmaceutical companies with their synthetic drugs, to think all of em would be worthless because weed is the solution to all our aches, pains and illnesses)

I agree if we are talking about pure, un-adulterated cannabis. Street weed is far from this.

Are you like buying your weed from like the mafia or something? because not everyone is fucking adding toxic crap to their hydroponic plants. The only story I know of where this happened was in Germany

All chemical fertilisers have a significant level of toxicity.

To also say it's not regulated is kind of bullshit in the sense, that governments do have a control of marijuana especially America with their DEA. They confiscate it and resell it back to the people.

Yeh and i'm sure they test this weed to make sure it meets the level of non-existant safety regulations... lmfao.

When I was in orlando, the dealers that me and my friends bought from grew their own (hydroponically too), and they were legit (I don't have to prove myself to you, if you were me or my friends you would know)

Yeh I'm sure they were some real cool cats. However, if they were using chemical ferts, which 95% of hydro growers do, then you were/are smoking some hazardous residues.

I know conspiracies are everywhere, but I didn't know you were so avidly set that all weed suppliers are criminals.

Unless they are in the Netherlands, Switzerland or Cali and have a licence to cultivate/distribute. Then yeh, they are criminals, and have to maximise their profit to justify the risk.

Maybe it's just in Aussie land, stop buying from the aboriginees (they want you dead).

lol wut?

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

According to medterms.com Substance Abuse can be defined as:

Spare me the "Websters defines Substance Abuse as..."-type bullshit. Are you in high school?

The stereotypes mentioned can all be characterised by those definitions. Further, if you were to ask anyone (who isnt biased due to their own personal habits), if those stereotypes would constitute "abusers" they would most likely say yes.

And a person who had no first-hand experience with sex could describe someone who liked to get laid every night as a "sex addict." Please.

Sure, but abusive use of a substance is when it effects other important aspects of one's life.

First off, need I remind you that these "examples" are purely ficticious and are characatured to drive home a point? That people STEREOTYPE people who smoke pot? And exactly where in the original article does it say that these STEREOTYPES neglect other important aspects, other than those named? Fuck, man... I guarantee you neglect some aspects of your life for others--EVERYONE DOES. It's called "time management."

You could just as easily "read between the lines" and say that the Phish-listening "space cadet" also is the sole caretaker for his bedridden mother.

You could say that the "burger flipper" is an extremely gifted painter who donates his time making murals for the local community center.

See how easy it is? If you want to assign subtext, that's alright, but don't claim that somehow you've mined all this extraneous material out of an article when there's none to be found.

Stereotype 1: An unemployed porno addict, sitting in his parents’ basement, playing video games, eating Lucky Charms out of the box with one hand while he lazily scratches his balls with the other.
He has no job.
He is dependent on his parents.
He is lazy.

- You got the unemployed part right. Then again, I know plenty of people who are unemployed and have never smoked pot in their lives.
- Living in your parents basement doesn't mean you are dependent on them. Again, I know a fair number of people who live with their parents because of health issues, or simply as a money-saving venture.
- "Lazily scratching" doesn't mean that you're lazy. It's called an adverb. If you somehow equate the two, then you might want to pick up a copy of Strunk and White, possibly even sit in on an English class or two.

Stereotype 2: A dread-lock having, patchouli oil smelling, tie-die wearing, Phish listening, hula-hoop twirling space cadet.
He doesnt have a firm grip on reality.

- Again, you're reading FAR too much into it. Ever met someone with ADD? They could just as easily be described as a "space cadet." Not to mention that being a "space cadet" doesn't mean you aren't connected to reality--it could just as easily mean that you space off/daydream. If you can argue that daydreaming is a bad thing, I'd like to see you try.

Stereotype 3: A burger flipping, acne having, socially inept, friendless loser.
He withdraws from social interaction, in favour of getting high.

Where does it say that he withdraws from society in favor of getting high? The answer? NOWHERE. YOU'RE ASSIGNING SUBTEXT. AGAIN, there ARE social outcasts who have NEVER smoked pot. These actions can't attributed directly to pot. Correlation is not causation.

No but it describes it pretty well, as I have demonstrated above.

You didn't demonstrate ANYTHING, other than your imagination and ability to add emphasis to posts.

I bet the article on successful non-weed smokers would be a bit longer.

Probably. However, no one makes it a point to stereotype/socially-exclude sobriety. I'm sure you understand the point of the article though.

Not to mention that I bet an article on successful alcoholics would also be pretty long.

[Galleleo]

Stereotype 1: An unemployed porno addict, sitting in his parents’ basement, playing video games, eating Lucky Charms out of the box with one hand while he lazily scratches his balls with the other.
He has no job.
He is dependent on his parents.
He is lazy.

Stereotype 2: A dread-lock having, patchouli oil smelling, tie-die wearing, Phish listening, hula-hoop twirling space cadet.
He doesnt have a firm grip on reality.

Stereotype 3: A burger flipping, acne having, socially inept, friendless loser.
He withdraws from social interaction, in favour of getting high.

BS,

For example: nowhere does it say he is socially inept because of the weed, maybe he is just socially awkward and that is why he smokes? Maybe his acne makes him incredibly insecure and that is why he smokes?

Unless they are in the Netherlands, Switzerland or Cali and have a licence to cultivate/distribute. Then yeh, they are criminals, and have to maximise their profit to justify the risk.

Wait, people in the Netherlands have a license to grow weed?

Shows what you know.

[PaulOakenfold]

Not to mention that I bet an article on successful alcoholics would also be pretty long.

I was going to say that originally, but then I realized I'd surely get the 'well, they're killing themselves slowly' argument against me... believe me, I know it firsthand.

I'm really not against weed, I smoked a lot as a kid, but I hate the people who talk about it like it's their life; why can't you just enjoy it, go on with your life, and not be so verbal and fanatical about it? It reminds me a lot of religious and athiest fanatics.

That fact and articles like these make me want marijuana legalized even more - even though I don't smoke anymore, I'd like to see it at least be available medicinally - so that those particular people that smoke have nothing to talk about (like many comedians have mentioned in stand-ups, this is not actually my original idea).


e: Yes, I understand the idea of the article as well as the intent.
double edit: If legislation in America goes beyond medicinal use and growing, I'd want it to be legalized and taxed, not decriminalized. Decriminalization is a step in the wrong direction.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

I'm really not against weed, I smoked a lot as a kid, but I hate the people who talk about it like it's their life; why can't you just enjoy it, go on with your life, and not be so verbal and fanatical about it? It reminds me a lot of religious and athiest fanatics.

Agreed. I'm the same way. I hate so-called "pot culture" and think it's pretty laughable for the most part.

I just hate it when it gets demonized. There are people who can regulate themselves, and they don't need people like TagMor trying to tell them that all users are abusers. That's all I'm saying.

e:

double edit: If legislation in America goes beyond medicinal use and growing, I'd want it to be legalized and taxed, not decriminalized. Decriminalization is a step in the wrong direction.

Agreed.

[PaulOakenfold]

Fuck edits, here's a good movie, albeit long winded pretty slanted in the marijuana agenda. It covers almost all the bases, with an eclectic group of guest speakers.
http://blip.tv/file/1356143/

[TagMor]

you might want to pick up a copy of Strunk and White, possibly even sit in on an English class or two.

lol

There are people who can regulate themselves, and they don't need people like TagMor trying to tell them that all users are abusers. That's all I'm saying.

So now I am saying all users are abusers?.. Think it's you who needs the English lesson, bud.

Wait, people in the Netherlands have a license to grow weed?
Shows what you know.

There are a few corporations who have licenses to legally grow weed for reasearch, and also to supply the Medical Industry.

I cant be bothered to continue with the arguing atm. To clarify: I do smoke weed. I have abused weed.
Oh, here is something you potheads might appreciate.. My personally signed copy of the Grower's Bible :grin:

[T Mac-1]

Weed, just like anything else, can and should be enjoyed responsibly...I believe it will be legalized in my lifetime for sure eace:

[Cyrus]

you guys make me feel bad for being an alcoholic instead of a pothead

[Stompa]

nerd rage

I am saying the negative effects of heavy weed use are alot more apparent than alcohol abuse.

I hope you don't actually mean that the negative effects of heavy weed use are a lot more apparent than alcohol abuse.

• What are the consequences of binging on alcohol or marijuana? Where are the delirium tremens with weed? THC-poisoning?

• Alcohol lowers inhibitions in a way that weed just can't compare - which increases the number of potential "negative effects." Alcohol intoxication and drunk driving accidents/deaths account for more harmful behavioral effects than do all marijuana-related accidents (driving, falling, etc).

• The addiction potential for alcohol is higher than that for marijuana (and I mean statistically significant). Tolerance for alcohol builds up faster than cannabis.

• Neurotoxicity, both short term and especially long term, is almost inevitable with alcohol, and at the very best debatable for cannabis. Cell death is likely with alcohol, and cognitive impairment is likely with a history of heavy drinking.

• In terms of mental illness, causality is debatable, but mental health comorbidities with alcohol abuse/dependence are MUCH more prevalent than with cannabis abuse/dependence. While there is some relationship between heavy cannabis use and psychosis, this correlation becomes extremely weak when age of first use is not considered. Early users of any drug are at a higher risk for deleterious health effects.

• Long term major health disease for cannabis involves inconsistent statistics on lung cancer and memory problems.

• Societal costs - what are the societal costs of marijuana abuse, other than the cost to persecute it? Whatever those costs are, they do not hold a candle to the costs of alcohol abuse or dependence.

Is that enough? Can you really say, on average, a heavy marijuana user will experience more negative effects than a heavy user of alcohol?

PS I've never touched the mary j