Weed makes you a bad driver?

[Drunken Durfin]

Cannabis drivers 'twice as likely to cause car crash'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16961112

"In the UK, 18% of people killed in road crashes have traces of illegal drugs in their blood, with cannabis the most common, Brake says"

Notice they don't say what % of people killed in road crashes had alcohol in their system. The absence of what the actual % was for cannabis is a nice propaganda trick too. With they way they have phrased it the number could be as low as 9%, if not less.

If you are stoned you are more likely to have a wreck than if you are not, fine. However, if you are stoned and there is plenty of food in the house your a 10 times less likely to actually leave the house.

[Keller]

Cannabis drivers 'twice as likely to cause car crash'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16961112

"In the UK, 18% of people killed in road crashes have traces of illegal drugs in their blood, with cannabis the most common, Brake says"

Notice they don't say what % of people killed in road crashes had alcohol in their system. The absence of what the actual % was for cannabis is a nice propaganda trick too. With they way they have phrased it the number could be as low as 9%, if not less.

If you are stoned you are more likely to have a wreck than if you are not, fine. However, if you are stoned and there is plenty of food in the house your a 10 times less likely to actually leave the house.

You can also be drunk with traces of cannabis in your blood.

[Parkbandit]

Cannabis drivers 'twice as likely to cause car crash'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16961112

"In the UK, 18% of people killed in road crashes have traces of illegal drugs in their blood, with cannabis the most common, Brake says"

Notice they don't say what % of people killed in road crashes had alcohol in their system. The absence of what the actual % was for cannabis is a nice propaganda trick too. With they way they have phrased it the number could be as low as 9%, if not less.

If you are stoned you are more likely to have a wreck than if you are not, fine. However, if you are stoned and there is plenty of food in the house your a 10 times less likely to actually leave the house.

They also didn't talk about driving while distracted.. or driving while deprived of sleep.. or driving with pets in your lap...

They are simply pointing out that driving under the influence of pot is bad. Do you disagree with that statement?

[AnticorRifling]

You can also be drunk with traces of cannabis in your blood.

Impossible. Weed is clearly ok for everything at all times, you're just confused by the man, man.

[Sam]

.."traces of cannabis in their blood.." So maybe they just smoked a few days prior?

If you just took a random sampling of every driver who hasn't been in a crash, you'd probably get lots of traces of cannabis.

[Androidpk]

Poorly done test, pointing out accidents where people had cannabis in their blood shows nothing, as it remains in your system for weeks.

[Parkbandit]

Poorly done test, pointing out accidents where people had cannabis in their blood shows nothing, as it remains in your system for weeks.

Do you believe that driving under the influence of cannabis is dangerous?

[Androidpk]

Do you believe that driving under the influence of cannabis is dangerous?

I don't like open ended yes/no questions like that, too many variables that could come into play. Sex, age, weight, amount consumed, ect ect.

Yes. For some people, driving under the influence of cannabis is dangerous. For some people it is not.

I would certainly say its a whole lot safer than driving under the influence of alcohol.

[Rinualdo]

Yes. For some people, driving under the influence of cannabis is dangerous. For some people it is not.


Who is it not dangerous for?

[Tgo01]

The first paragraph says


Drivers who use cannabis up to three hours before driving are twice as likely to cause a collision as those not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, says a Canadian study.

So they are claiming to know the person used cannabis up to three hours prior to the crash. Can they actually test for something like that? Or do they just ask the people? If it's the latter how do they determine the consumption of people who died in the crash?

[Gelston]

I heard they were coming up with a test for it. Couldn't they always take blood also?

[Androidpk]

I heard they were coming up with a test for it. Couldn't they always take blood also?

Are police allowed to take blood samples at the scene of an accident?

[Gelston]

They can at the station, especially if someone is pulled for DUI.

[Bobmuhthol]

The study found a near doubling of risk of a driver being involved in a motor vehicle collision resulting in serious injury or death if cannabis had been consumed less than three hours before.

What is this bullshit defense you people are giving about "IT COULD HAVE BEEN WEEKS BEFORE!" Can you read?


They can at the station, especially if someone is pulled for DUI.

Depending on the state, they would need a court order. In Massachusetts, you can refuse sobriety testing, and that obviously would include forced blood draws.

[Back]

The BBC did a test and found this guy drove more carefully.

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

[AnticorRifling]

Are police allowed to take blood samples at the scene of an accident?

Just get the sample off the steering wheel or road, duh.

[Androidpk]

The BBC did a test and found this guy drove more carefully.

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

There are other tests/studies that show similar.

[Bobmuhthol]

The BBC did a test and found this guy drove more carefully.

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

I didn't pay close enough attention, but it seems like they have a guy smoke and immediately start driving. If that's the case, well yeah, it's pretty clear that he's going to drive normally. I can take a few shots and drive like a champ, but I wouldn't do it half an hour later.

[Androidpk]

Who is it not dangerous for?

Male chronic users.

[Bobmuhthol]

There are other tests/studies that show similar.

But this study shows a result that you don't like, so clearly we would throw it away. You have no scientific background to judge the merit of the studies, but that's fine, we should listen to you about which ones are designed properly.

[Androidpk]

But this study shows a result that you don't like, so clearly we would throw it away. You have no scientific background to judge the merit of the studies, but that's fine, we should listen to you about which ones are designed properly.

Calm down bro, it's not the results I don't like, its the method of testing.

[Bobmuhthol]

I guess it's just a coincidence that the studies you think are conducted properly lead to the result that you personally want, and everything else is shit. Carry on.

[Androidpk]

Yes, because I disagree with one study means I must automatically disagree with all of them. Your observation and intuition is remarkable, your mom and dad must be very proud of you.
Carry on.

[Bobmuhthol]

You didn't even read the study! You read an article stating that the study existed!

[Androidpk]

I listened to this

http://www.bmj.com/podcast/2012/02/10/cannabis-cars

And read this

http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e536



Review methods We included observational epidemiology studies of motor vehicle collisions with an appropriate control group, and selected studies that measured recent cannabis use in drivers by toxicological analysis of whole blood or self report.

The highlighted part is pretty much the only concern I have with this study. Self report is hardly an accurate measure and as I said, cannabis will stay in your system for weeks or longer. Aside from self reporting I don't believe there is any drug test that can determine when marijuana was used. Hardly a reliable method for testing.

[Keller]

It is not arguable that being under the influence of cannabis makes driving more dangerous.

You can debate (i) the methods of this study, (ii) whether the study's conclusion is misleading, (iii) how much more dangerous cannabis consumption makes a driver, or (iv) whether a blowjob from hot Lindsey Lohan would be better than a blowjob from toothless meth addict Lindsey Lohan, but you cannot argue that being under the influence does not make a driver more dangerous.

[Delias]

Driving under the influence of anything is dangerous- enjoy your weed responsibly, always designate a driver or have a fast food joint within walking distance of your house.

We used to have a white castle on the opposite corner of my block. It is now a walgreens. I am chronically saddened by this.

[Latrinsorm]

I would certainly say its a whole lot safer than driving under the influence of alcohol.I have never done weed, but I understand that it is a hallucinogen. It seems to me that hallucinations could be just as dangerous in this context as impaired reflexes from a depressant, no?

[Keller]

I have never done weed, but I understand that it is a hallucinogen. It seems to me that hallucinations could be just as dangerous in this context as impaired reflexes from a depressant, no?

http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k564/righty5846/2gif.gif

[Androidpk]

I have never done weed, but I understand that it is a hallucinogen. It seems to me that hallucinations could be just as dangerous in this context as impaired reflexes from a depressant, no?

It is not a hallucinogen.

[Gelston]

No, it isn't. It does however alter your mental state.

[Bobmuhthol]

While many psychoactive drugs clearly fall into the category of either stimulant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulant), depressant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressant), or hallucinogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen), cannabis exhibits a mix of all properties, perhaps leaning the most towards hallucinogenic or psychedelic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_drug) properties, though with other effects quite pronounced as well. Though THC is typically considered the primary active component of the cannabis plant, various scientific studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research) have suggested that certain other cannabinoids like CBD may also play a significant role in its psychoactive effects.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)#cite_note-autogenerated1-15)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)#cite_note-bookDrugs_and_Behavior:_An_Introduction_to_Behavio ral_Pharmacology_.285th_Edition.29-16)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)#cite_note-urlInformation_on_Drugs_of_Abuse-17)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)

Why are people denying this?

[Latrinsorm]

Oh, I thought it was. Are you pretty sure? Wikipedia has the following to offer:

"While many psychoactive drugs clearly fall into the category of either stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogen, cannabis exhibits a mix of all properties, perhaps leaning the most towards hallucinogenic or psychedelic properties, though with other effects quite pronounced as well."

Are you guys on the weed now? Perhaps you are hallucinating about the word hallucinogen!!

[Androidpk]

While many psychoactive drugs clearly fall into the category of either stimulant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulant), depressant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressant), or hallucinogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen), cannabis exhibits a mix of all properties, perhaps leaning the most towards hallucinogenic or psychedelic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_drug) properties, though with other effects quite pronounced as well. Though THC is typically considered the primary active component of the cannabis plant, various scientific studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research) have suggested that certain other cannabinoids like CBD may also play a significant role in its psychoactive effects.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)#cite_note-autogenerated1-15)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)#cite_note-bookDrugs_and_Behavior:_An_Introduction_to_Behavio ral_Pharmacology_.285th_Edition.29-16)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)#cite_note-urlInformation_on_Drugs_of_Abuse-17)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)

Why are people denying this?

You have obviously never inhaled, that much is obvious.

[Bobmuhthol]

You have obviously never inhaled, that much is obvious.

I think your days of arguing this issue are over. Really? You really just said that?

[Androidpk]

I think your days of arguing this issue are over. Really? You really just said that?

You used wikipedia as a source and wonder why people deny weed is a hallucinogen?

[Bobmuhthol]

I'm sorry, are the three sources cited not good enough because Wikipedia cited them?

[Parkbandit]

Male chronic users.

So, your contention is that if you smoke pot on a very regular basis and you are a male, you will be immune and cannot be impaired by the effects of it?

Are you high currently? ...because that makes no sense at all.

[Androidpk]

I'm sorry, are the three sources cited not good enough because Wikipedia cited them?

It could have 30 sources claiming mj is a hallucinogen and it would still be incorrect.

[Androidpk]

So, your contention is that if you smoke pot on a very regular basis and you are a male, you will be immune and cannot be impaired by the effects of it?

Are you high currently? ...because that makes no sense at all.

The male part was only thrown in there because everyone knows females can't drive for shit.

[Parkbandit]

The male part was only thrown in there because everyone knows females can't drive for shit.

So, you honestly believe that a chronic user of pot will be immune to it's effects?

I take it you've never smoked pot before... because that is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[Bobmuhthol]

It could have 30 sources claiming mj is a hallucinogen and it would still be incorrect.

You're a fucking idiot.

[Androidpk]

I believe a chronic user would be able to smoke a small amount, something of a joint size or smaller, and be fully capable of driving in a safe and effective manner.

[Parkbandit]

Male chronic users.

Dear Delias..

You might be moving down another spot.

[Androidpk]

You're a fucking idiot.

Please tell me how many times smoking weed has made you have hallucinations.

[Parkbandit]

Please tell me how many times smoking weed has made you have hallucinogens.

lulwut?

[Liagala]

I believe a chronic user would be able to smoke a small amount, something of a joint size or smaller, and be fully capable of driving in a safe and effective manner.
The question wasn't the degree - it's is there any at all. Impairment that is slight enough to allow the user to continue to operate "in a safe and effective manner" despite its presence, is still impairment. If your reactions are a trillionth of a second slower, they're still slower. That's the point PB is getting at.

[Reltov420]

I drive stoned just fine every day, this makes me chuckle.

[SHAFT]

Who's the genius that figured this out?

[Keller]

Why are people denying this?

Because it is not true.

[Delias]

As someone who has, in olden times, smoked vast quantities of high quality herb, I feel I can safely say that hallucinations are right out.

It's not a hallucinogen, it is a cannabinoid- your body already produces them naturally, unless national geographic is an invalid source. They are obsessed with weed over there.

[Keller]

A little distraught that Jimmy Wales had lead everyone astray, I decided to figure out what "hallucinogen" meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen

There is the description, and I will now agree that cannabis, under that description, is a hallucinogen.

It does NOT, however, cause one to hallucinate (which was Latrin's (reasonable) mistake).

[Delias]

A little distraught that Jimmy Wales had lead everyone astray, I decided to figure out what "hallucinogen" meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen

There is the description, and I will now agree that cannabis, under that description, is a hallucinogen.

It does NOT, however, cause one to hallucinate (which was Latrin's (reasonable) mistake).

Ah, that makes more sense then.

[Androidpk]

I suppose that makes a bit more sense. I see the word hallucinogen and I think of psychedelics like LSD and psilocybins.

[Delias]

I suppose that makes a bit more sense. I see the word hallucinogen and I think of psychedelics like LSD and psilocybins.

It's the whole word in common usage thing. Words with multiple meanings are typically associated with it's most common uses- only the occasional cop, doctor, or scientist really even gives a shit (probably some lawyers too) that weed can be classified as a hallucinogen.

Oh, and some ass monkeys on here who think weed makes you trip balls, apparently.

[Androidpk]

The question wasn't the degree - it's is there any at all. Impairment that is slight enough to allow the user to continue to operate "in a safe and effective manner" despite its presence, is still impairment. If your reactions are a trillionth of a second slower, they're still slower. That's the point PB is getting at.

It's not just degree, it's tolerance as well.

[Bobmuhthol]

Please tell me how many times smoking weed has made you have hallucinations.

Irrelevant. However, I think you don't understand what a hallucination is.

[Parkbandit]

I believe a chronic user would be able to smoke a small amount, something of a joint size or smaller, and be fully capable of driving in a safe and effective manner.

I can drink a beer and be fully capable of driving in a safe and effective manner.

Your current statement isn't even close to the suggestion made by your previous post though.

[Parkbandit]

I drive stoned just fine every day, this makes me chuckle.

Change stone to drunk and my alcoholic uncle believed the same thing when he was drinking.

[TheEschaton]

Until there is an effective measure of "how stoned" you are, and what might constitute being able to safely drive while some degree of stoned, like the BAC exists for alcohol, law enforcement has to err on the side of outright prohibition of driving while stoned.

This is, of course, under the assumption weed was ever legal.

Also, the only weed that's ever given me hallucinations was laced with PCP. LOL.

(You didn't read this post - this is not the post you're looking for.)

[Androidpk]

Until there is an effective measure of "how stoned" you are, and what might constitute being able to safely drive while some degree of stoned, like the BAC exists for alcohol, law enforcement has to err on the side of outright prohibition of driving while stoned.

This is, of course, under the assumption weed was ever legal.

Also, the only weed that's ever given me hallucinations was laced with PCP. LOL.

(You didn't read this post - this is not the post you're looking for.)

.

[TheEschaton]

I didn't *know* it was laced with PCP.

[Keller]

I didn't *know* it was laced with PCP.

I once ate some chocolates a friend gave me under the assurance they were normal edibles. An hour later at the bar I realized they were mushroom edibles and that I needed to get to a quiet place as soon as possible.

[TheEschaton]

Oh, well, I've done plenty of mushrooms on purpose before. Mushrooms are great. (were great, it's been more than a decade since I've consumed any substance deemed illegal.)

[Androidpk]

I didn't *know* it was laced with PCP.

I had that happen once a along time ago.. i don't remember if i hallucinated or not but i did end up in a canoe by myself, out in the middle of the lake, in the middle of the night with no recollection of how i got there.

[Keller]

Oh, well, I've done plenty of mushrooms on purpose before. Mushrooms are great. (were great, it's been more than a decade since I've consumed any substance deemed illegal.)

I thought sodomy was still illegal in Texas.

[Blazar]

Who is it not dangerous for?

Lots of people.

[Keller]

Lots of people.

I don't even have the energy to find a gif to respond at this point.

Wallow in your ignorance.

[Parkbandit]

I don't even have the energy to find a gif to respond at this point.

Wallow in your ignorance.

His login name should have given you a clue.

[Stanley Burrell]

Protocol Jung initiated.

[Latrinsorm]

A little distraught that Jimmy Wales had lead everyone astray, I decided to figure out what "hallucinogen" meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen

There is the description, and I will now agree that cannabis, under that description, is a hallucinogen.

It does NOT, however, cause one to hallucinate (which was Latrin's (reasonable) mistake).
The term "hallucinogen" is a misnomer because these drugs do not cause hallucinations at typical doses.Sure enough... I think I've been trolled by medical science.

[Blazar]

His login name should have given you a clue.

So because I played a conflag Demo in Age Of Conan and named him Blazar this is supposed to give him some insight to my personality? Really? Stereotypical, eh?

I might smoke weed, and I might not, who's to say? One thing I will say is that I have known a lot of people who can smoke and drive and have never been in an at fault accident. I can't say the same for people who are drunk. I have also known a lot of people who have been pulled over by the law while sky high and the cop had no idea (never seen this with someone who is drunk, they pretty much always get caught).

I'm not saying smoking pot can not or will not impair your ability to drive, however you may find for some people it actually augments their abilities to drive. Elimination of anxiety in tight traffic conditions or situations, the ability to focus where it may not have been possible otherwise (think ADD/ADHD and similar conditions), etc. The key thing to remember is chemicals, be they natural or man made, do not affect people in the same ways.

As stated previously, this whole thread is retarded as the test proves nothing, but the thread definitely demonstrates how prejudiced and stereotypical people are, as does just about every thread on the PC. How, here's an idea, judge yourself, not others. The world would be a much better place if you did.

[Androidpk]

So because I played a conflag Demo in Age Of Conan and named him Blazar this is supposed to give him some insight to my personality? Really? Stereotypical, eh?

I might smoke weed, and I might not, who's to say? One thing I will say is that I have known a lot of people who can smoke and drive and have never been in an at fault accident. I can't say the same for people who are drunk. I have also known a lot of people who have been pulled over by the law while sky high and the cop had no idea (never seen this with someone who is drunk, they pretty much always get caught).

I'm not saying smoking pot can not or will not impair your ability to drive, however you may find for some people it actually augments their abilities to drive. Elimination of anxiety in tight traffic conditions or situations, the ability to focus where it may not have been possible otherwise (think ADD/ADHD and similar conditions), etc. The key thing to remember is chemicals, be they natural or man made, do not affect people in the same ways.
As stated previously, this whole thread is retarded as the test proves nothing, but the thread definitely demonstrates how prejudiced and stereotypical people are, as does just about every thread on the PC. How, here's an idea, judge yourself, not others. The world would be a much better place if you did.

Thank you.

/thread

[Some Rogue]

So because there is some minute amount of the population that could possibly drive better stoned, we should allow everyone to??

DUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRR

[AnticorRifling]

Why does the weed argument never stand on its own, why is it always "Oh yeah well booze/coke/barbra walters"?

I like the I'm going to judge you then tell you to judge yourself not others so the world will be swell, that's a nice touch at the end of a rant.

[Tgo01]

One thing I will say is that I have known a lot of people who can smoke and drive and have never been in an at fault accident. I can't say the same for people who are drunk. I have also known a lot of people who have been pulled over by the law while sky high and the cop had no idea (never seen this with someone who is drunk, they pretty much always get caught).

The problem is you can't look at each person on an individual basis. Some people might be able to drive just fine with a BAC of .15, some people should probably stay away from cars even with a level as low as .06. You can't really look at the extremes of .15 and say "Well some people can drive just fine being this drunk so it's okay if someone with only .09 drives." They have to create a limit and stick by it and that's what they've done with a .08 BAC level.

Also a lot of people drive drunk just fine everyday (by 'just fine' I mean they don't hit anything or anyone.) If it was a guarantee that every person who drives drunk is in an accident we would be having a lot more vehicle accidents. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a law against driving drunk "Hey I know some guy who has driven drunk 50 times without being in an accident, make it legal to drive drunk!" That sounds a bit silly doesn't it?

[Androidpk]

So because there is some minute amount of the population that could possibly drive better stoned, we should allow everyone to??

DUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRR

You are the only one suggesting that.

[Blazar]

There was no rant involved. I also did not judge anyone. Try again.

[Blazar]

The problem is you can't look at each person on an individual basis. Some people might be able to drive just fine with a BAC of .15, some people should probably stay away from cars even with a level as low as .06. You can't really look at the extremes of .15 and say "Well some people can drive just fine being this drunk so it's okay if someone with only .09 drives." They have to create a limit and stick by it and that's what they've done with a .08 BAC level.

Also a lot of people drive drunk just fine everyday (by 'just fine' I mean they don't hit anything or anyone.) If it was a guarantee that every person who drives drunk is in an accident we would be having a lot more vehicle accidents. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a law against driving drunk "Hey I know some guy who has driven drunk 50 times without being in an accident, make it legal to drive drunk!" That sounds a bit silly doesn't it?

Never did I confirm or deny whether I agree people should be "allowed" to drive stoned. I'm fine with laws against driving impaired. People will do it anyhow, some of which will fail miserably and kill themselves or others, and some will cause no issues and some will range everywhere in the middle, as with all things. I simply provided my personal insight and experiences. Having a law against something doesn't prevent it from happening.

[Delias]

Why does the weed argument never stand on its own, why is it always "Oh yeah well booze/coke/barbra walters"?

I like the I'm going to judge you then tell you to judge yourself not others so the world will be swell, that's a nice touch at the end of a rant.

Sorry, maybe I missed your point here- I think the argument for weed is the exact same argument as for booze. They are both substances that alter your perception and personality, and used in moderation really have no substantial negative effects on your health. The issues are the same for both and both should be treated the same- as a recreational drug for adults who wish to use them in a responsible manner.

They should be subject to the same laws for operating machinery or whatever while under the influence. It's absolutely ridiculous that alcohol is somehow magically ok buy marijuana isn't when the effects are by and large the same. The only difference to me is that I've never vomited or punched someone in the face due to my weed altered perception- I cannot say the same for whiskey.

I think it's the pothead lifestyle that throws people, as if we didn't already have alcoholics. Whatever your drug of choice, if you make it your world and base all of your "culture" off of it, you are a moron anyway.

Legalize it, regulate it, and tax the hell out of it. That's how I feel about it. Just like booze, it shouldn't be an every day thing.

I guess I have ranted/rambled myself out now.

[Gelston]

You can't make laws that effect only SOME people in a situation like this. While some people might beable to drive perfectly safe and fine with over a .08 or stoned or whatever, there are others that will kill people. The law must be a blanket deal.

And I really couldn't care less if pot was legal. I don't fuck with it now because it is illegal in most places, including where I live.

[Tgo01]

Never did I confirm or deny whether I agree people should be "allowed" to drive stoned.

You're right you didn't. You just said that you know people who drive stoned just fine and are pulled over by cops and the cops never realize it while implying anyone who drives drunk is going to be in an accident or is going to get caught if pulled over by a cop. Oh you also made the case that some people actually drive better while stoned.

You are right though, you never came right out and said people should be allowed to drive stoned or that it doesn't impair people's ability to drive.


Having a law against something doesn't prevent it from happening.

And you tried to claim I was putting words in your mouth.

[Parkbandit]

So because I played a conflag Demo in Age Of Conan and named him Blazar this is supposed to give him some insight to my personality? Really? Stereotypical, eh?

I might smoke weed, and I might not, who's to say? One thing I will say is that I have known a lot of people who can smoke and drive and have never been in an at fault accident. I can't say the same for people who are drunk. I have also known a lot of people who have been pulled over by the law while sky high and the cop had no idea (never seen this with someone who is drunk, they pretty much always get caught).

I'm not saying smoking pot can not or will not impair your ability to drive, however you may find for some people it actually augments their abilities to drive. Elimination of anxiety in tight traffic conditions or situations, the ability to focus where it may not have been possible otherwise (think ADD/ADHD and similar conditions), etc. The key thing to remember is chemicals, be they natural or man made, do not affect people in the same ways.

As stated previously, this whole thread is retarded as the test proves nothing, but the thread definitely demonstrates how prejudiced and stereotypical people are, as does just about every thread on the PC. How, here's an idea, judge yourself, not others. The world would be a much better place if you did.


lulz.

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0912/legalize-pot-stupid-stoners-demotivational-poster-1260655513.jpg

[Androidpk]

No it doesn't.

Small minded, ignorant people tend to blurt out "lulz" when they start losing an argument. It's all they have left.

Don't let these type of complete losers bully you from speaking your mind.

You were saying.

[Some Rogue]

You are the only one suggesting that.


Then I guess the people who responded likewise after me misunderstood his oh so eloquent point too....

[Latrinsorm]

So because I played a conflag Demo in Age Of Conan and named him Blazar this is supposed to give him some insight to my personality? Really? Stereotypical, eh?

I might smoke weed, and I might not, who's to say? One thing I will say is that I have known a lot of people who can smoke and drive and have never been in an at fault accident. I can't say the same for people who are drunk. I have also known a lot of people who have been pulled over by the law while sky high and the cop had no idea (never seen this with someone who is drunk, they pretty much always get caught).

I'm not saying smoking pot can not or will not impair your ability to drive, however you may find for some people it actually augments their abilities to drive. Elimination of anxiety in tight traffic conditions or situations, the ability to focus where it may not have been possible otherwise (think ADD/ADHD and similar conditions), etc. The key thing to remember is chemicals, be they natural or man made, do not affect people in the same ways.

As stated previously, this whole thread is retarded as the test proves nothing, but the thread definitely demonstrates how prejudiced and stereotypical people are, as does just about every thread on the PC. How, here's an idea, judge yourself, not others. The world would be a much better place if you did.I know people who smoke cigarettes and don't have cancer. Unless it turns out "carcinogen" means "substance that does not cause cancer", my observation is not representative of the larger reality, do you agree?

[Parkbandit]

I take dick up the ass much easier when I'm stoned, which is why I get stoned everyday.

You were saying?

This IS fun!

[Fallen]

1. Pot should be legal.
2. It should be (or remain) illegal to drive while under the influence of pot.

[Archigeek]

"Chicks can't hold their smoke, dat's what it is!"

[Androidpk]

You were saying?

This IS fun!

You don't get how this game works do you.

[Drunken Durfin]

I used to smoke pot on a regular basis. I was smart enough to let the pizza rolls cool, turn off the oven and put in a Fraggle Rock video BEFORE I lit up the bong. Some of us know our limitations when we are stoned. There is no way in hell I would ever get behind the wheel of a vehicle when I when I was baked, and I don't think that anyone else should either. However, I still think that the article was using flawed arguments and misleading statistics to inflate the argument that pot should still be illegal - which I think is stupid as long as alcohol is freely available.

Since it was brought up though, I don't that that anyone who feels they can drive safely after a few beers should be allowed on the road either. I spent several years as a medic pulling people's heads out of windshields and steering wheels that were drunk or the victim of a drunk driver. I never once, to my knowledge, worked a car accident where the driver was smoking weed.

I am reminded of a quote from a state trooper, "Drunks tend to drive 25 miles over the speed limit. Stoners tend to be 25 miles under it and are a lot easier to deal with...once they realize there are blue lights flashing behind them."

[Parkbandit]

You don't get how this game works do you.

No.

But I also don't think chronic potheads are immune to the effects of pot either, so what do I know.

[Androidpk]

No.

But I also don't think chronic potheads are immune to the effects of pot either, so what do I know.

Tolerance plays a big role in this, hence my choice of the word chronic. Someone who smokes everyday isn't going to get the same effects from smoking weed as someone who only smokes occasionally.

[Blazar]

No.

But I also don't think chronic potheads are immune to the effects of pot either, so what do I know.

A whole lot of something about nothing I'd imagine.

[Drunken Durfin]

Tolerance plays a big role in this, hence my choice of the word chronic. Someone who smokes everyday isn't going to get the same effects from smoking weed as someone who only smokes occasionally.

Unless you are a total lightweight. A quarter bag would last me six months. I did use to work with a guy who was a wake-n-baker. I was always amazed at his ability to function stoned. Functioning alcoholics, functioning stoners. The body (in certain cases) can build up a tolerance for just about anything.

[Androidpk]

I used to smoke pot on a regular basis.


A quarter bag would last me six months.

How is that possible? Pretty sure Eschaton takes the cake with his QP a weekend.

[Parkbandit]

Tolerance plays a big role in this, hence my choice of the word chronic. Someone who smokes everyday isn't going to get the same effects from smoking weed as someone who only smokes occasionally.

No one has argued against this.

Nice try though.

[Gelston]

I would also ad that most pot smokes, as well as most alcohol drinkers, are not chronic users.

[Parkbandit]

I would also ad that most pot smokes, as well as most alcohol drinkers, are not chronic users.

WHY DO YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO PASS JUDGMENT ON OTHERS! JUDGE YOURSELF!!!

PS - RonPaul2012

[Androidpk]

No.

But I also don't think chronic potheads are immune to the effects of pot either, so what do I know.


No one has argued against this.

Nice try though.

OK

[Bobmuhthol]

Like what a hallucinogen is, I'm not sure you understand what immune means.

[Androidpk]

Like what a hallucinogen is, I'm not sure you understand what immune means.

Fuck off already man. Not once did I mention the word immune, only tolerance.

[Drunken Durfin]

Oh, and another thing. In all my years of smoking pot I never had a single hallucination. I was confounded by a twinkie wrapper or two, but the twinkie never spoke to me, melted, changed colors or told me to kill the president.

I did once fly my bathtub to Central America through a rift in space once after drinking a half-bottle of mescal post 48-hours of no sleep. So, I am familiar with what a hallucination is.

[Bobmuhthol]

Fuck off already man. Not once did I mention the word immune, only tolerance.

Are you reading the shit you're quoting? Jesus Christ.

[subzero]

Who is it not dangerous for?

I have managed for quite some time now. Never been the cause of an accident and have only been hit once by some dumb bitch right next to me deciding she wanted to try to get into the lane with the big truck in it. I also do not drive the speed limit.

[Bobmuhthol]

DID YOU NOT QUOTE SOMEONE USING THE WORD "IMMUNE" AND THEN SAY "NIGGA BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT TOLERANCE?" HOW FUCKING STUPID CAN YOU BE?

[Blazar]

DID YOU NOT QUOTE SOMEONE USING THE WORD "IMMUNE" AND THEN SAY "NIGGA BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT TOLERANCE?" HOW FUCKING STUPID CAN YOU BE?

You're so cool.

[Drunken Durfin]

DID YOU NOT QUOTE SOMEONE USING THE WORD "IMMUNE" AND THEN SAY "NIGGA BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT TOLERANCE?" HOW FUCKING STUPID CAN YOU BE?

I think your caps lock button is stuck. I'm only pointing this out because you might be high and not realize what is going on.

[Back]

Having experimented with both alcohol, and THC, and observing others doing the same, I can say that I would not recommend driving under the influence of either no matter what the quantity consumed.

This does not, however, change my opinion that marijuana should be legalized, taxed, and regulated as alcohol is.

[Bobmuhthol]

I'm fucking done trying to talk to this cocksucker Androidpk, fuck everyone in this thread, see y'all later.

[Back]

I have no doubt that we will look back on these days after weed is legal and ask ourselves, "really"?

[Androidpk]

DID YOU NOT QUOTE SOMEONE USING THE WORD "IMMUNE" AND THEN SAY "NIGGA BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT TOLERANCE?" HOW FUCKING STUPID CAN YOU BE?

As stupid as you're being right now? I had been talking about tolerance from the very fucking beginning, only PB was talking about being immune to it.

[Back]

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/252/39836181.jpg

[Tgo01]

Who would have thought a conversation about marijuana would make everyone so angry?

[Back]

Who would have thought a conversation about marijuana would make everyone so angry?

Honestly, the weird thing is that this is all about William Randolph Hearst and the price of what used to be the the paper a news paper was printed on!

[Drunken Durfin]

Honestly, the weird thing is that this is all about William Randolph Hearst and the price of what used to be the the paper a news paper was printed on!

I toured his "house" once. It would have been more interesting if I had been high.

[Parkbandit]

As stupid as you're being right now? I had been talking about tolerance from the very fucking beginning, only PB was talking about being immune to it.

Really?


Yes. For some people, driving under the influence of cannabis is dangerous. For some people it is not.

[Back]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5cCiXt6IM

[TheEschaton]

A QP in a weekend is not that hard when you're doing it with like four people.

I don't think I ever said I did a QP by myself in a weekend, but if I did, man, I musta been high.

[Back]

http://video.adultswim.com/12-oz-mouse/we-have-a-plan.html

[subzero]

I have never done weed, but I understand that it is a hallucinogen. It seems to me that hallucinations could be just as dangerous in this context as impaired reflexes from a depressant, no?

Ya know, it's starting to make sense to me why the stuff is so vilified (aside from the obvious, multi-million dollar hits various industries would take if we could only grow and manufacture shit with hemp). Lemme guess! Black men will rape your white wimminz, too, huh? (Go go government propaganda!)


While many psychoactive drugs clearly fall into the category of either stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogen, cannabis exhibits a mix of all properties, perhaps leaning the most towards hallucinogenic or psychedelic properties, though with other effects quite pronounced as well. Though THC is typically considered the primary active component of the cannabis plant, various scientific studies have suggested that certain other cannabinoids like CBD may also play a significant role in its psychoactive effects.[16][17][18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)

Why are people denying this?

Sooo, just how much first-hand experience do you have with ANY of these substances? Cause I know that I have had plenty with those lovely little green nuggets as well as shit like acid and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt, the effects are not similar. Not even close. I get the feeling your closest experience with this subject is when some idiot TV character gets "high" after smoking a joint and the screen gets fuzzy, moves around, and has all sorts of colors appear out of no where for no good reason, or some inanimate object on the damn coffee table starts to talk to them (God damn you, Ice Cube!). This is not reality, it is bullshit TV.


There is the description, and I will now agree that cannabis, under that description, is a hallucinogen.

It does NOT, however, cause one to hallucinate (which was Latrin's (reasonable) mistake).


The term "psychedelic" is used interchangeably with "psychotomimetic" and "hallucinogen",[2] thus it can refer to a large number of drugs such as classical hallucinogens (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, etc.), empathogen-entactogens (e.g. MDMA), cannabinoids, and some dissociative drugs (e.g. Salvia divinorum and ketamine)

I doubt anyone not wearing a lab coat refers to the categories as they were broken down there.

Seems to me that calling pot a hallucinogen (which includes things that do cause actual hallucinations) is like calling a hammer a fuckin power tool.


Sorry, maybe I missed your point here- I think the argument for weed is the exact same argument as for booze. They are both substances that alter your perception and personality, and used in moderation really have no substantial negative effects on your health. The issues are the same for both and both should be treated the same- as a recreational drug for adults who wish to use them in a responsible manner.

They should be subject to the same laws for operating machinery or whatever while under the influence. It's absolutely ridiculous that alcohol is somehow magically ok buy marijuana isn't when the effects are by and large the same. The only difference to me is that I've never vomited or punched someone in the face due to my weed altered perception- I cannot say the same for whiskey.

I agree, but the answer as to why it's illegal is simple. Money. Hemp. How can they stop people from growing and producing things with hemp if it's no longer illegal to grow the stuff? There are too many things that can be made with hemp for all these huge corporations to allow it to happen.

The other reason has already been touched on. They have no way to really accurately test for it in situations such as automobile accidents, traffic stops, or DUI checkpoints. I don't think it's too likely they'll legalize something, restrict it's use while operating vehicles, and then have no legally binding way to determine your status.

I was looking to see if I could find a good list of potential products real quick and happened to run into this:

http://www.nemeton.com/static/nemeton/axis-mutatis/hemp.html


Hemp was NOT banned because it was a harmful drug. Hemp was banned because it was a competitive threat to the wood products industry and newly developed synthetic fibers that were patentable, and therefore more profitable than hemp. Corporations that profited from the demise of hemp propagated a smear campaign against hemp by claiming that marijuana use was a major drug problem (it was not) and that marijuana use caused people to become extremely violenthttp://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2321/hideyakids.png - another falsehood. Unfortunately, these false claims went unchallenged and Congress outlawed hemp in 1937. Unfortunately, millions of Americans still believe the lies spread about marijuana/hemp.

The potential of hemp for paper production is enormous. According to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, one acre of hemp can produce 4 times more paper than one acre of trees! All types of paper products can be produced from hemp: newsprint, computer paper, stationary, cardboard, envelopes, toilet paper, even tampons.

Trees must grow for 20 to 50 years after planting before they can be harvested for commercial use. Within 4 months after it is planted, hemp grows 10 to 20 feet tall and it is ready for harvesting! Hemp can be grown on most farmland throughout the U.S., where forests require large tracts of land available in few locations

Hemp can also be substituted for cotton to make textiles. Hemp fiber is 10 times stronger than cotton and can be used to make all types of clothing. Cotton grows only in warm climates and requires enormous amounts of water. Hemp requires little water and grows in all 50 states

Hemp produces twice as much fiber per acre as cotton! An area of land only 25 miles by 25 miles square (the size of a typical U.S. county) planted with hemp can produce enough fiber in one year to make 100 MILLION pair of denim jeans! A wide variety of clothing made from 100% hemp (pants, denim jeans, jackets, shoes, dresses, shorts, hats) is now available.

Building materials that substitute for wood can be made from hemp. These wood-like building materials are stronger than wood and can be manufactured cheaper than wood from trees. Using these hemp- derived building materials would reduce building costs and save even more trees

Hemp seeds are a source of nutritious high-protien oil that can be used for human and animal consumption. Hemp oil is NOT intoxicating. Extracting protein from hemp is less expensive than extracting protein from soybeans

Hemp produces more biomass than any plant that can be grown in the U.S. This biomass can be converted to fuel in the form of clean-burning alcohol, or no-sulphur man-made coal. Hemp has more potential as a clean and renewable energy source than any crop on earth! It is estimated that if hemp was widely grown in the U.S. for fuel/energy, it could supply 100% of all U.S. energy needs

Hemp for rope, lubricating oil, shoe material, and other materials was in such short supply during World War II that the U.S. government temporarily re-legalized hemp so U.S. farmers could grow it for the war effort

FACT: NO TREE OR PLANT SPECIES ON EARTH HAS THE COMMERCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL POTENTIAL OF HEMP. OVER 30,000 KNOWN PRODUCTS CAN BE PRODUCED FROM HEMP

That, obviously, is just scratching the surface.


From 1776 to 1937, hemp was a major American crop and textiles made from hemp were common. Yet, The American Textile Museum, The Smithsonian Institute, and most American history books contain no mention of hemp. The government's War on Marijuana Smokers has created an atmosphere of self censorship--speaking of hemp in a positive manner is considered taboo

From another site, but I found it interesting, especially the latter part concerning the museums and whatnot.

[subzero]

But I also don't think chronic potheads are immune to the effects of pot either, so what do I know.

Immune, not necessarily. However, even with alcoholics, your body does start to build a tolerance and can begin to compensate for the impairments one would normally see under the effects of these drugs.

Oh, look, a google search about alcohol tolerance:

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa28.htm



Functional Tolerance
Humans and animals develop tolerance when their brain functions adapt to compensate for the disruption caused by alcohol in both their behavior and their bodily functions. This adaptation is called functional tolerance. Chronic heavy drinkers display functional tolerance when they show few obvious signs of intoxication even at high blood alcohol concentrations, which in others would be incapacitating or even fatal...

However, functional tolerance does not develop at the same rate for all alcohol effects (4-6). Consequently, a person may be able to perform some tasks after consuming alcohol while being impaired in performing others. In one study, young men developed tolerance more quickly when conducting a task requiring mental functions, such as taking a test, than when conducting a task requiring eye-hand coordination, such as driving a car.

Environment-dependent tolerance
The development of tolerance to alcohol's effects over several drinking sessions is accelerated if alcohol is always administered in the same environment or is accompanied by the same cues. This effect has been called environment-dependent tolerance... Similar results were found when an alcohol-induced increase in heart rate was studied in humans. When the study subjects always received alcohol in the same room, their heart rate increased to a lesser extent after drinking in that room than in a new environment.

Environment-dependent tolerance develops even in "social" drinkers in response to alcohol-associated cues. In a study analyzing alcohol's effects on the performance of an eye-hand coordination task, a group of men classified as social drinkers received alcohol either in an office or in a room resembling a bar. Most subjects performed the task better (i.e., were more tolerant) when drinking in the barlike environment. This suggests that for many people, a bar contains cues that are associated with alcohol consumption and promote environment-dependent tolerance.

Learned tolerance
The development of tolerance also can be accelerated by practicing a task while under the influence of alcohol. This phenomenon is called behaviorally augmented (i.e., learned) tolerance...

Humans also develop tolerance more rapidly and at lower alcohol doses if they practice a task while under the influence of alcohol. When being tested on a task requiring eye-hand coordination while under the influence of alcohol, people who had practiced after ingesting alcohol performed better than people who had practiced before ingesting alcohol. Even subjects who only mentally rehearsed the task after drinking alcohol showed the same level of tolerance as those who actually practiced the task while under the influence of alcohol.

Learned and environment-dependent tolerance have important consequences for situations such as drinking and driving. Repeated practice of a task while under the influence of low levels of alcohol, such as driving a particular route, could lead to the development of tolerance, which in turn could reduce alcohol-induced impairment. However, the tolerance acquired for a specific task or in a specific environment is not readily transferable to new conditions. A driver encountering a new environment or an unexpected situation could instantly lose any previously acquired tolerance to alcohol's impairing effects on driving performance.


Who would have thought a conversation about marijuana would make everyone so angry?

See there? Some of you guys need to just chill the fuck out... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TlBTPITo1I

[SHAFT]

Anyone into vaporizing?

[TheEschaton]

Yeah man, chill the fuck out.

Jesus, grow up. Never have two posts made me want to hurl so badly.

[Sam]

This reminds me of someone's stand-up who said you should be able to take your driving test while drunk, and then get approved to drive at .1% or whatever you pass at.

While that's a ridiculous idea, I'm sure people who drink and drive all the time get pretty good at driving at .1%, especially compared to any other distracted driving that's not so easily proven after an accident.

Same goes for pot. I haven't smoked in a long time, but I know it fucks me up pretty good. I've known a lot of people who wake and bake and function amazingly well. It doesn't mean they're immune to the effects, but honestly, I think some people can function better high because it's their their normal state.

Legalize all pot, not medical. Abolish all marriage, and legalize all civil unions. Outlaw all phone use in cars and keep drug/alcohol influenced driving illegal.

Also improve warcamp loot. 500 giants and all i get is 3x leathers, wtf.

[Keller]

Anyone into vaporizing?

That and edibles are the only way to go.

[Androidpk]

I heard vaporizers were a pain to clean, that true?

[Keller]

I heard vaporizers were a pain to clean, that true?

No.

[Blazar]

I heard vaporizers were a pain to clean, that true?

Depends on which one you get. I'd recommend going with an expensive one, the cheap ones typically don't do it for me.

[AnticorRifling]

Depends on which one you get. I'd recommend going with an expensive one, the cheap ones typically don't do it for me.


So because I played a conflag Demo in Age Of Conan and named him Blazar this is supposed to give him some insight to my personality? Really? Stereotypical, eh?

I might smoke weed, and I might not, who's to say?


I lol'd.

[Some Rogue]

I lol'd.

DON'T JUDGE HIM YOU AHOLE.

[Parkbandit]

DON'T JUDGE HIM YOU AHOLE.

Seriously!

[Androidpk]

Yeah, because it's fun to ridicule people who don't share the same opinion as you!

[Liagala]

Yeah, because it's fun to ridicule people who don't share the same opinion as you!
Well duh. That's one of the founding concepts of the internet.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, because it's fun to ridicule people who don't share the same opinion as you!

It's more fun to ridicule people who post really, really stupid things though.

[Back]

Yeah, because it's fun to ridicule people who don't share the same opinion as you!

Not its not fun you flipping idiot. Every time I come here someone has the gall to disagree with me. You try posting on a board where people might disagree with you and see how you feel. Jerk!

[AnticorRifling]

Not its not fun you flipping idiot. Every time I come here someone has the gall to disagree with me. You try posting on a board where people might disagree with you and see how you feel. Jerk!

We only disagree with you when you're wrong.

[Sam]

We only disagree with you when you're wrong.

He already said that.

[AnticorRifling]

I will cut you.

[SHAFT]

If anyone is interested in vaporizers send me a pm.

No, vaporizers are not hard to clean at all. You're not actually burning the product so you're not getting all the nasty stuff usually associated with water pipes or regular pipes. If you're interested in smoking the healthy way and conserving the product it's the best way to go. Also if you want to be discreet. You don't get the big cloud of smoke like you would with a joint or a blunt.

[Delias]

If anyone is interested in vaporizers send me a pm.

No, vaporizers are not hard to clean at all. You're not actually burning the product so you're not getting all the nasty stuff usually associated with water pipes or regular pipes. If you're interested in smoking the healthy way and conserving the product it's the best way to go. Also if you want to be discreet. You don't get the big cloud of smoke like you would with a joint or a blunt.

Oldest trick in the book, narc.

[SHAFT]

Oldest trick in the book, narc.

Haha, I assure you that's not the case. I sell pipes and vaporizers for a living.

[Latrinsorm]

Ya know, it's starting to make sense to me why the stuff is so vilified (aside from the obvious, multi-million dollar hits various industries would take if we could only grow and manufacture shit with hemp). Lemme guess! Black men will rape your white wimminz, too, huh? (Go go government propaganda!)



Sooo, just how much first-hand experience do you have with ANY of these substances? Cause I know that I have had plenty with those lovely little green nuggets as well as shit like acid and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt, the effects are not similar. Not even close. I get the feeling your closest experience with this subject is when some idiot TV character gets "high" after smoking a joint and the screen gets fuzzy, moves around, and has all sorts of colors appear out of no where for no good reason, or some inanimate object on the damn coffee table starts to talk to them (God damn you, Ice Cube!). This is not reality, it is bullshit TV.





I doubt anyone not wearing a lab coat refers to the categories as they were broken down there.

Seems to me that calling pot a hallucinogen (which includes things that do cause actual hallucinations) is like calling a hammer a fuckin power tool.



I agree, but the answer as to why it's illegal is simple. Money. Hemp. How can they stop people from growing and producing things with hemp if it's no longer illegal to grow the stuff? There are too many things that can be made with hemp for all these huge corporations to allow it to happen.

The other reason has already been touched on. They have no way to really accurately test for it in situations such as automobile accidents, traffic stops, or DUI checkpoints. I don't think it's too likely they'll legalize something, restrict it's use while operating vehicles, and then have no legally binding way to determine your status.

I was looking to see if I could find a good list of potential products real quick and happened to run into this:

http://www.nemeton.com/static/nemeton/axis-mutatis/hemp.html


That, obviously, is just scratching the surface.



From another site, but I found it interesting, especially the latter part concerning the museums and whatnot.Deep breaths, buddy.

[Androidpk]

Deep breaths, buddy.

Ok Obama.

[Delias]

Haha, I assure you that's not the case. I sell pipes and vaporizers for a living.

Second oldest trick. =]

[subzero]

Deep breaths, buddy.

Yes, I almost forgot to breathe I was in such a rage. Thank you.

[Latrinsorm]

Yes, I almost forgot to breathe I was in such a rage. Thank you.I only have your best interests at heart! :) Now let's have a chat about salt...

[Parkbandit]

I saw this on FB this morning.. and thought of a couple people here:

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/398088_271934006203043_231164773613300_767190_1411 936907_n.jpg

[Blazar]

Sadly, as with just about everything else in our society, it can all be traced back to money.

[Liagala]

Okay potheads - where's the proof on zero deaths, saves police billions, and grows brain cells? This whole thread started because of people who drove high and caused accidents (which eliminates the zero death and save police money theories right there).

And yes, I know, you're immune to the effects. You're an excellent driver. I get it. You are not everyone. I know the one time I tried to drive baked, it was a miserable failure. I was lucky not to get in an accident, and I never tried something that dumb again. Expand your argument to include everyone, not just your own personal experience.

[Delias]

Okay potheads - where's the proof on zero deaths, saves police billions, and grows brain cells? This whole thread started because of people who drove high and caused accidents (which eliminates the zero death and save police money theories right there).

And yes, I know, you're immune to the effects. You're an excellent driver. I get it. You are not everyone. I know the one time I tried to drive baked, it was a miserable failure. I was lucky not to get in an accident, and I never tried something that dumb again. Expand your argument to include everyone, not just your own personal experience.

Zero deaths meaning people don't die of weed poisoning.

[Parkbandit]

Sadly, as with just about everything else in our society, it can all be traced back to money.

Isn't that every society.. ever?

[Liagala]

Zero deaths meaning people don't die of weed poisoning.
Okay. Unless there's info out there that I don't know about, I can accept this one.

[Delias]

Okay. Unless there's info out there that I don't know about, I can accept this one.

Well let me put it this way- if it had happened, one of our 150 24 hour news stations would have picked it up already, and you would have heard about it.

[Blazar]

It is physically impossible to overdose on pot. You could theoretically have an allergic reaction to it and that kills you, but the same can be said for grass, milk, mustard, peanuts, bananas, etc. etc. etc.

As far as growing brain cells... I don't think that is true, but could certainly be wrong I suppose.

[Delias]

It is physically impossible to overdose on pot. You could theoretically have an allergic reaction to it and that kills you, but the same can be said for grass, milk, mustard, peanuts, bananas, etc. etc. etc.

As far as growing brain cells... I don't think that is true, but could certainly be wrong I suppose.

I have never seen or heard of a study that says it grows brain cells, but I have seen studies that show how it can enhance creativity by changing the way your mind associates words and concepts, kind of like a creativity lubricant.

As far as curing cancer, I was unaware that inhaling carbon monoxide did that. They must save that treatment for the rich and give chemo to the poor.

[Blazar]

THC certainly helps the symptoms of cancer patients, and as far as killing cancer I have heard it basically takes over a cell, kills it, then moves on to the next. Hence, it certainly could kill cancer, but it's not like it targets cancer specifically. I am not claiming this has been scientifically proven, mostly just what I have heard, never bothered to actually research it.

[Blazar]

And agreed on the creativity thing. I was going to include that, but only have so much time between work tasks for forum posting.

[Parkbandit]

Zero deaths meaning people don't die of weed poisoning.

That's like saying zero deaths can be attributed to drinking alcohol, because you don't get lung cancer from alcohol.

[Parkbandit]

THC certainly helps the symptoms of cancer patients, and as far as killing cancer I have heard it basically takes over a cell, kills it, then moves on to the next. Hence, it certainly could kill cancer, but it's not like it targets cancer specifically. I am not claiming this has been scientifically proven, mostly just what I have heard, never bothered to actually research it.

:rofl:

I knew that picture would produce some quality posts today.

[Androidpk]

saves police billions

Easy. Look at the number of arrests each year for simple marijuana possession.

[Tgo01]

Inhaling any smoke, no matter the source, can be potentially harmful to you (unless you're Clinton of course and don't inhale while doing marijuana.)

People don't generally overdose on cigarettes either but the long term effects is what kills people. Cigarettes are obviously worse than marijuana because of shit like nicotine in tobacco but that doesn't mean weed is 100% totally harmless. The main differences between tobacco users and marijuana users is people tend to smoke 20 or more cigarettes a day while people generally only have maybe 1 marijuana cigarette a day. Also people who use tobacco usually smoke their whole life whereas marijuana smokers usually don't use the stuff long term. Who knows if the latter would change though if marijuana were legalized?

[Bobmuhthol]

(If police wanted to save money, they would stop arresting people. Shit argument. I'm not here.)

[Parkbandit]

Inhaling any smoke, no matter the source, can be potentially harmful to you (unless you're Clinton of course and don't inhale while doing marijuana.)

People don't generally overdose on cigarettes either but the long term effects is what kills people. Cigarettes are obviously worse than marijuana because of shit like nicotine in tobacco but that doesn't mean weed is 100% totally harmless. The main differences between tobacco users and marijuana users is people tend to smoke 20 or more cigarettes a day while people generally only have maybe 1 marijuana cigarette a day. Also people who use tobacco usually smoke their whole life whereas marijuana smokers usually don't use the stuff long term. Who knows if the latter would change though if marijuana were legalized?

Why don't you worry about yourself and not what others do in the privacy of their own homes?

KILLJOY!

[Delias]

That's like saying zero deaths can be attributed to drinking alcohol, because you don't get lung cancer from alcohol.

Uhm, no, it's not. Let me illustrate the difference.

Alcohol poisoning is a direct and immediate cause of death. Lung cancer is something you may or may not develop- there are people who have smoked every day for 50 years and not developed lung cancer. There are also people who have never smoked, and HAVE developed lung cancer. Your argument doesn't hold the firewater, chief.

Edit: If you can't see the difference between "too much WILL kill you" and "too much may or may not kill you several years from now", then you need more help than anyone here can provide.

[Parkbandit]

Uhm, no, it's not. Let me illustrate the difference.

Alcohol poisoning is a direct and immediate cause of death. Lung cancer is something you may or may not develop- there are people who have smoked every day for 50 years and not developed lung cancer. There are also people who have never smoked, and HAVE developed lung cancer. Your argument doesn't hold the firewater, chief.

Edit: If you can't see the difference between "too much WILL kill you" and "too much may or may not kill you several years from now", then you need more help than anyone here can provide.

You made the claim that Pot causes zero death because you can't die of weed poisoning. This is factually absurd.

It's like saying you can't die from alcohol, because alcohol can't give you lung cancer. This is just as factually absurd.

-Chief

[Tgo01]

I hope the government never decides the legality of something based solely on whether or not someone could overdose on it, I would hate to give up water :(

[Delias]

You made the claim that Pot causes zero death because you can't die of weed poisoning. This is factually absurd.

It's like saying you can't die from alcohol, because alcohol can't give you lung cancer. This is just as factually absurd.

-Chief

If you check, I did not make that claim. I said that was what the wording on your image refers to- at least, I hope that is what it refers to, otherwise it is clearly retarded.

[Parkbandit]

If you check, I did not make that claim. I said that was what the wording on your image refers to- at least, I hope that is what it refers to, otherwise it is clearly retarded.

Look at it again. It's a chart... one on the left is referring to alcohol, the one on the right is referring to pot.

You are combining two entries.. which is why I thought you were clearly retarded.

[Liagala]

If you check, I did not make that claim. I said that was what the wording on your image refers to- at least, I hope that is what it refers to, otherwise it is clearly retarded.
It is clearly retarded for several reasons, even if that particular claim was valid.

[Parkbandit]

It is clearly retarded for several reasons, even if that particular claim was valid.

Shh. Let him work it through.

[Tgo01]

It is clearly retarded for several reasons, even if that particular claim was valid.

My favorite part is how they think the opposite of 'depressant' is 'antidepressant.' If only the person who made the chart realized that 'depressant' doesn't mean it makes someone depressed.

EDIT: I felt the need to clarify that the above is indeed my favorite part of the chart. The part that made me laugh the most though was the 'cures cancer' bit.

[SHAFT]

I like it when people try to argue that pot is dangerous and needs to be outlawed. It's similar to when I hear Christians talk about God creating the earth in 7 days and Jesus rising from the dead. Ok;) it's all so amusing

[Tgo01]

I like it when people try to argue that pot is dangerous and needs to be outlawed. It's similar to when I hear Christians talk about God creating the earth in 7 days and Jesus rising from the dead. Ok;) it's all so amusing

You don't find it amusing that people claim marijuana cures cancer and grows brain cells? Because it doesn't get much funnier than that.

[SHAFT]

That also is amusing. I don't think marijuana kills cancer or creates brain cells. Show me scientific proof and I'll jump on that bandwagon, but for now that sounds like poppycock.

I do believe marijuana helps cancer patients deal with pain and provides them with appetites so they can eat and hold down food during their chemotherapy. To say it kills cancer is wrong though.

[Parkbandit]

I do believe marijuana helps cancer patients deal with pain and provides them with appetites so they can eat and hold down food during their chemotherapy. To say it kills cancer is wrong though.

Bingo.

[Androidpk]

Cure might be a strong word but there are some good scientific studies out there proving that marijuana is an effective method of treating a cancer patient. By that I mean coping with cancer, the pain, the nausea, ect. There are also some interesting pre-trials that are showing that THC will target and kill malignant cells while leaving healthy cells alone.

In other words, to simply laugh this off is the wrong approach.

[Tenlaar]

I would just like to point out that there are ways to ingest THC that do not give you cancer. There is no way that I am aware of to ingest alcohol so that it doesn't pass through and harm the liver.

[Tenlaar]

And random note, was there every a discussion on here about this? Modified white blood cells being used to destroy cancerous cells. I have seen and heard practically nothing about this anywhere. Like it was a news blurb for one day and then just gone.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44090512/ns/health-cancer/t/new-leukemia-treatment-exceeds-wildest-expectations/#.T0fhkbQxiVo

[Tgo01]

Cure might be a strong word but there are some good scientific studies out there proving that marijuana is an effective method of treating a cancer patient. By that I mean coping with cancer, the pain, the nausea, ect. There are also some interesting pre-trials that are showing that THC will target and kill malignant cells while leaving healthy cells alone.

In other words, to simply laugh this off is the wrong approach.

Everything I've read on the subject suggests THC may stop the spread of certain cancers and may reduce the size of the tumor of other cancers. If that turns out to be true it's certainly great news. But to suggest it 'cures' cancer at this point is, as you pointed out, kind of stretching things a bit.

I've also read that smoking marijuana and tobacco may increase your risk of lung cancer.

[subzero]

That's like saying zero deaths can be attributed to drinking alcohol, because you don't get lung cancer from alcohol.

Try again when you find a legit death certificate showing marijuana as the cause of death. Alcohol in and of itself can kill you. Irresponsibility while under the effects of alcohol can kill you (or others). The last statement is true for countless things, drug-related or not. On the other hand, the statement prior to that simply is not true for marijuana, which is the point you're trying to distort.

[Androidpk]

There have been a few close calls though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU6AVtQethw

[Parkbandit]

Try again when you find a legit death certificate showing marijuana as the cause of death. Alcohol in and of itself can kill you. Irresponsibility while under the effects of alcohol can kill you (or others). The last statement is true for countless things, drug-related or not. On the other hand, the statement prior to that simply is not true for marijuana, which is the point you're trying to distort.

Re-read my posts pertaining to people making the claim that marijuana has caused zero deaths. That is factually inaccurate.

If you could also post a 'legit death certificate showing alcohol as the cause of death', that would be great.

[Blazar]

Not death certificates, but a quick google turned this up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_through_alcohol

Alcohol poisoning as the cause of death means they drank too much and it killed them, just in case you were wondering. The first paragraph clarifies this.

[Androidpk]

How come there is no entry for marijuana poisoning?

[SHAFT]

Come on, marijuana is not a killer like alcohol is and we all know it. If you want to argue for the sake of arguing well fuck off.

I'm sure someone died once from trying to rob someone of their weed. I'm sure once or twice someone got high and caused an accident which might've included death or great injury. But cannabis isn't even in the same galaxy as alcohol when it comes to danger and negative side effects. You all fucking know it

:)

[AnticorRifling]

But cannabis isn't even in the same galaxy as alcohol when it comes to danger and negative side effects. You all fucking know it

:)

I disagree.

[Keller]

Okay potheads - where's the proof on zero deaths, saves police billions, and grows brain cells? This whole thread started because of people who drove high and caused accidents (which eliminates the zero death and save police money theories right there).

And yes, I know, you're immune to the effects. You're an excellent driver. I get it. You are not everyone. I know the one time I tried to drive baked, it was a miserable failure. I was lucky not to get in an accident, and I never tried something that dumb again. Expand your argument to include everyone, not just your own personal experience.

I was going to respond, until I got highhhhh.

I was going to tell you everything, but then I got highhhhhh.

You still don't know, and I know whyyyy.

Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high.

[Tgo01]

I hear Doritos is spearheading this campaign promoting the good, healing qualities of marijuana.

[SHAFT]

Must.....not...argue....with strangers....on the.....interwebz.....

[subzero]

Re-read my posts pertaining to people making the claim that marijuana has caused zero deaths. That is factually inaccurate.


I'm not going to argue the semantics of it, if that's where you're trying to go. We all know what is meant when it's said that marijuana doesn't kill people. So, that brings us back to the great gun debate. Yay! Guns and cell phones kill people, not the idiots wielding them!

[Delias]

Why do I keep forgetting the cardinal fucking rule? PB is always right. Argument over.

[Tgo01]

Why do I keep forgetting the cardinal fucking rule? PB is always right. Argument over.

I thought the cardinal fucking rule was the younger the better?

[SHAFT]

Re-read my posts pertaining to people making the claim that marijuana has caused zero deaths. That is factually inaccurate

"Hey everyone, I was at a house party back in nineteen-seventy-two, and uh, I saw a feller swallow a lit roach! That sucker choked and died right there he did! That weed stuff, it sher is bad stuff! Damn that marijawanna, I ain't touchin it".

[Androidpk]

"Hey everyone, I was at a house party back in nineteen-seventy-two, and uh, I saw a feller swallow a lit roach! That sucker choked and died right there he did! That weed stuff, it sher is bad stuff! Damn that marijawanna, I ain't touchin it".

He probably openly masturbated while choking too.

[Parkbandit]

Why do I keep forgetting the cardinal fucking rule? PB is always right. Argument over.

No, the cardinal rule is when you post something stupid, I'll call you out on it.

Now, take a mulligan on your last stupidity and try again.

[Parkbandit]

"Hey everyone, I was at a house party back in nineteen-seventy-two, and uh, I saw a feller swallow a lit roach! That sucker choked and died right there he did! That weed stuff, it sher is bad stuff! Damn that marijawanna, I ain't touchin it".

"Hey... i like pot. it maks me creativ and maks me smart. pot no can kill you. don't be a pussy, smok it like me!. its totaly safe! it ain adicktive, it ain depressin, it ain never killed no one ever, it dont kill brain cells, it grows them like it done with me! Smoke up! Hey pass the chips, mom, I'm hungre!"

Oh and it curs canser!!!

[Delias]

No, the cardinal rule is when you post something stupid, I'll call you out on it.

Now, take a mulligan on your last stupidity and try again.

Instead of me trying to prove to your stodgy constipated ass that weed is more harmless than alcohol, why don't you prove that it isn't? I'd love to see your research.

[SHAFT]

"Hey... i like pot. it maks me creativ and maks me smart. pot no can kill you. don't be a pussy, smok it like me!. its totaly safe! it ain adicktive, it ain depressin, it ain never killed no one ever, it dont kill brain cells, it grows them like it done with me! Smoke up! Hey pass the chips, mom, I'm hungre!"

Oh and it curs canser!!!

Stay off my dick

[Parkbandit]

Instead of me trying to prove to your stodgy constipated ass that weed is more harmless than alcohol, why don't you prove that it isn't? I'd love to see your research.

Show me where I have made any such claim.. that alcohol is less harmful or more harmful than pot. I never did.

You, on the other hand, were attempting to prove that there have been zero deaths from pot... which you failed miserably at. See, the thing you didn't understand, was that the pic I linked was making fun of the outrageous claims that potheads make about smoking marijuana.

Now go have your mommy change your diapers.. I think you just shit yourself again.

[Delias]

Show me where I have made any such claim.. that alcohol is less harmful or more harmful than pot. I never did.

You, on the other hand, were attempting to prove that there have been zero deaths from pot... which you failed miserably at. See, the thing you didn't understand, was that the pic I linked was making fun of the outrageous claims that potheads make about smoking marijuana.

Now go have your mommy change your diapers.. I think you just shit yourself again.

The only point I was making is that you cannot die directly from exposure or use of marijuana directly. The only possible way this could happen is if you were in an airtight room filled with nothing but weed-smoke, in which case you would asphyxiate...unlike alcohol, which is a poison that can kill you solely through consuming enough of it.

I did not say that it doesn't impair your driving and cause accidents if you drive intoxicated, nor did I say it doesn't have the potential to cause lung cancer.

Examine the difference, douche-canoe: Alcohol, if you consume too much, you die RIGHT NOW. Weed, if you consume too much, you will not die unless you take foolish action do to intoxication or EVENTUALLY get lung cancer over a span of years of continuous use.

Fuck, you are so retarded sometimes it makes me wonder how you manage to get the computer turned on to make your terrible arguments. This is not like the movie "thank you for smoking" in which if you argue correctly, you are never wrong. This is the internet- and you are wrong.

[Parkbandit]

The only point I was making is that you cannot die directly from exposure or use of marijuana directly. The only possible way this could happen is if you were in an airtight room filled with nothing but weed-smoke, in which case you would asphyxiate...unlike alcohol, which is a poison that can kill you solely through consuming enough of it.

Fantastic. You should also point out that you cannot get frostbite from marijuana because it doesn't get cold enough. Or that you can't drown from marijuana because it's not wet enough. Hey look everyone, ZERO DEATHS!!



I did not say that it doesn't impair your driving and cause accidents if you drive intoxicated, nor did I say it doesn't have the potential to cause lung cancer.

No one said you did, Einstein.



Examine the difference, douche-canoe: Alcohol, if you consume too much, you die RIGHT NOW. Weed, if you consume too much, you will not die unless you take foolish action do to intoxication or EVENTUALLY get lung cancer over a span of years of continuous use.

Re-read the post you originally responded to. Liagala asked you to explain the "Zero deaths" one. You combined the "You can't OD" and "Zero deaths" together.


Fuck, you are so retarded sometimes it makes me wonder how you manage to get the computer turned on to make your terrible arguments. This is not like the movie "thank you for smoking" in which if you argue correctly, you are never wrong. This is the internet- and you are wrong.

You're an idiot. Go get high some more so you can at least be "more creative" in your stupidity.

[Delias]

Fantastic. You should also point out that you cannot get frostbite from marijuana because it doesn't get cold enough. Or that you can't drown from marijuana because it's not wet enough. Hey look everyone, ZERO DEATHS!!



No one said you did, Einstein.



Re-read the post you originally responded to. Liagala asked you to explain the "Zero deaths" one. You combined the "You can't OD" and "Zero deaths" together.



You're an idiot. Go get high some more so you can at least be "more creative" in your stupidity.

You chronically put words into the mouths of others to try and pervert the argument until your point is the correct one. I am done playing this game with you.

[Jarvan]

I may be jumping in here really late.. but I think the best test would be this..

For all you people out there that think you should be allowed to drive while high on pot..

If you had kids in grade school. Would you let them on a Bus if you KNEW the Bus Driver had been smoking before he started work that day? or was smoking while on break?

Or would you not care?

[Parkbandit]

You chronically put words into the mouths of others to try and pervert the argument until your point is the correct one.

Lulz, what? YOU are the one that is attempting to change the direction of the conversation.. like this:


I did not say that it doesn't impair your driving and cause accidents if you drive intoxicated, nor did I say it doesn't have the potential to cause lung cancer.


and this:


Instead of me trying to prove to your stodgy constipated ass that weed is more harmless than alcohol, why don't you prove that it isn't? I'd love to see your research.

Granted, both attempts sailed far left into the woods...


I am done playing this game with you.

http://www.literal.ly/_media/imgs/literal/L97451.jpg