do u smoke marijuana? if not this is the thread for u, if so u might learn something

Well my point is Ithica has brought up feminism, Freemasonry, and pedophilia, to try to argue his point in the last 2 pages I've read.

Haven't read the whole thing, but that doesn't help his case, it's diverting attention by association with things that are in his mind unfavorable. It doesn't begin to approach any issues brought up in the original article.

It's rambling.

 

sometimes people have a predisposition for a mental illness, such as schizophrenia, but it isn't brought out until done so by a traumatic event, or by use of a mind altering substance...

maybe some people with mental illnesses smoke to alleviate symptoms, but by no means does that indicate that that's THE reason that they all smoke.

it's basically impossible to argue with the pro-weed group, because they only believe what is convenient for their cause, and accuse anyone who doesn't agree of being ignorant and closed-minded

 

"sometimes people have a predisposition for a mental illness, such as schizophrenia, but it isn't brought out until done so by a traumatic event, or by use of a mind altering substance..."

that's very debatable. Many doctors agree or disagree.

And you're right about a lot of it, it's just not solid proof either way.

 

Pot is not good for schizophrenia.

And there is studies saying people who smoke pot have a greater chance of getting it... true or not who cares.

Just go about living your life without worrying about bullshite.

 

"Haven't read the whole thing, but that doesn't help his case, it's diverting attention by association with things that are in his mind unfavorable. It doesn't begin to approach any issues brought up in the original article.

It's rambling."

Exactly what I meant by tangents creating confusion.

 

exactly. very little actual research has been done, so most information given by either side is usually just someone's biased opinion, presented as fact. it just bothers me that on both sides, people refuse to listen to their oponents, and instead just accuse them of ignorance because they don't buy into the same biased information

 

You're absolutely right =)

I guess it could cause it... but that's what I mean by INFORMING people HONESTLY about things of this matter. If you have a history of schizophrenia in your family, then don't smoke weed. It's all a personal choice. Although, I can't help but wonder whether or not this type of information is biased, which is why I question the schizophrenia argument, but I digress.

 

"
It has nothing to do with "usefulless". Damn, I hate talking to stoners. I think I'll stop now."

Stop running away from the argument as soon as your belief system is being challenged ;-)

 

what matters isn't whether or not IT'S harmful, but the real and serioius harm that is being caused by its being unlawful to possess.

yes it IS less harmful then beer or tobacco, but that has nothing to do with why no one should go to jail for POSSESSING it.

for SELLING it i could maybe see. if there were a consensus against that. which i'm not entirely all that convinced there is, or even entirely ever was. but then i don't worship capitolism anyway.

(p.s. i'm NOT a stoner nor consumer of it in any way. though i did for a short time many years ago when i lived where it was readilly available.)

=^^=
.../\...

 

i dont know what ithaca meant by saying it has nothing to do with "usefulless" as he put it. the whole article was about its usefullness and didnt mention recreational use at all.

 

I sat through all your other moronic bullshit mumbo jumbo, but dude.....come on.

There are billions of poeple in this world, and NEWS FLASH: They don't all think the way you do. They don't like the same things you like, they don't wear the same clothes you wear and they don't have the same tastes you have.

Take a vacation man, you need one.

 

wait, he said tobacco causes millions of deaths and then he said it was harmless... hes talking to me and all of you about logic...

 

It is legal to grow THC-free hemp. You need to seperate the argument between a plant being useful and getting high being good.

 

Just to clarify: The reason pot isn't legal is because not enough people do it to care one way or the other.

Las Vegas, aka SIN city, tried twice. Lobbyists and other donators helped fly in THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of people to live in Vegas for six months to gain residency to help pass the bill to legalize it for their state. Even through two attemps of piping in "residents" to help boost numbers, they still failed.

Plain and simple, the majority gave up and went the legal way with beer. It's been so long that apathy has taken over to the point where the numbers just aren't there to make it happen.

 

:lol:

 

The problem is, there isn't any hemp that is 100% THC free. They've got it down to less than .03% THC, but by law even trace amounts are illegal. Cannabis itself is not illegal, you cannot ban a plant. It's the THC that is against the law.

 

Hmm, makes sense.

 

It must be a usable amount to constitue a charge.

I swear I know enough people that have been arrested for possession to know this is fact.

 

ok,
to the user who created this thread...ive been smoking weed since you were in diapers...its fun for ten years or so but...eh...you get over it one way or the other...

 

It depends on where you're at and the officer involved. I was charged with possession for having and unrolled joint. No 'marijana', just the resen from the maybe three tokes I took before I decided a bowl would be better.