Qhimm.com Forums
Off-topic forums => Completely Unrelated => Topic started by: Kudistos Megistos on 2011-07-27 19:26:49
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-henry-sterry/mexican-drug-lord-officia_b_179596.html
Joaquin Guzman, the first billionaire drug lord (as far as we know) has thanked El Presidente Obama and his predecessors for allowing him to follow in the footsteps of Al Capone and create an empire of crime based around puritan prohibition laws:
I couldn't have gotten so stinking rich without George Bush, George Bush Jr., Ronald Reagan, even El Presidente Obama, none of them have the cajones to stand up to all the big money that wants to keep this stuff illegal. From the bottom of my heart, I want to say, Gracias amigos, I owe my whole empire to you.
Mexican president Felipe Calderon is claimed to have said to the US administration "Why don't they make this shit legal already! You're killing me here!".
Of course, there are far too many vested interests in the US for cannabis to ever be legalised.
-
Even if it were made free in the US, Mexico would still be illegally exporting it. You wouldn't want to actually PAY the US embargo taxes and levies if you could just do what you've BEEN doing, would you?
-
Even if it were made free in the US, Mexico would still be illegally exporting it. You wouldn't want to actually PAY the US embargo taxes and levies if you could just do what you've BEEN doing, would you?
I'm sure, but their market would shrink ever so slightly. I'm sure that a lot of those middle-class teenagers who smoke it would be much more comfortable buying it in a shop than going to da hood or wherever it is they buy it now. Just like prohibition of alcohol, ya know? Once they re-legalised it, the illegal business went away.
Mr Guzman would have to start doing protection rackets.
-
Of course, there are far too many vested interests in the US for cannabis to ever be legalised.
Please explain what you mean by vested interest.
I always saw this as an issue with little political gain to change while having major political damage with the conservative base of the country (for no good reason I might add. Having this thing legalizzed and taxed to hell would bring in sizeable revenue).
-
Please explain what you mean by vested interest.
I always saw this as an issue with little political gain to change while having major political damage with the conservative base of the country (for no good reason I might add. Having this thing legalizzed and taxed to hell would bring in sizeable revenue).
What I mean is that there are other industries that benefit from cannabis being illegal and therefore not providing as much competition as it could. I can see the alcohol industry suffering if it were legalised, and the cigarette industry would have to make some major changes. The latter has a famously powerful lobby, n'est-ce pas?
-
If cannabis were legalized, hemp would be too (hemp is related to weed, but lacks significant amounts of the active ingredient). Hemp can be used to cloth, paper, and a host of other things that wood and plastics are currently used for. Some say that the reason weed was criminalized in the first place was that lumber barons were scared they would lose their fortunes, which they got by murdering people (mostly native americans, but occasionally the odd white person or ex-slave), stealing thier land, and then cutting down all the trees to make cheap paper so they could sell crappy books called "pulps".
That's one of the vested interests. The others are anyone who would lose money if weed were legalized. Not surprisingly, many of those groups are companies that supply law enforcement and military units with the equipment they use to (utterly fail at) interdict drugs.
-
If marijuana was legalized, what companies would be in the best position to start growing and producing the stuff? I'd have to guess the tobacco companies. Shit, there would be Marlboro Menthol Joints etc. By now, any reasons for not legalizing it are completely arbitrary. The death dealers should see legalization as an opportunity, not a competitor.
But then again, you know if you smoke weed your liable to enter a psychotic state and rape and murder women and children in a drug-induced frenzy. Oh wait...well...you might drive 35 MPH in a 45 MPH zone. Nevermind the fact that they still prescribe oxycontin and morphine and you can buy Nyquil and Robitussin at the corner store, any of which are 100 times more toxic to your body than Marijuana and have 10,000 times the potential for abuse.
-
Lol none of you smoke marijuana or know anything of counter-culture do you?
Mexican weed is HORRIBLE HORRIBLE H O R R I B L E ! ! ! ! It already has NO MARKET except for the skimpiest of all smokers( I know many people below the poverty line that would still opt for the expensive shit)
No major corporation would ever have a gold on the marijuana industry. Just wont happen. Marijuana is about quality.
You think Marlboro would put the same care as a Top Grower thats been doing this for 20 years? No way..... Lol if you knew anything about growing weed you would know its a SCIENCE. Marlboro simply would not have the experience to put out GREAT pot. OKAY pot sure.... anyone can do that. But great pot can only come from a true grower.
-
Sorry but I'm from Canada. When I used to smoke weed, the quality was a 1000 times better than the shit we found in the US when on trips. BC and Quebec are famous for their great quality weed and with good reason from what I could tell.
As for cigarette smoking going down if weed was legalized, I'd actually state the opposite. Most people who smoke weed will cut it with tobacco to make it last longer and make it easier on the throat. Plus have an "after-roach" cigarette as it supposedly deepens the buzz (it does according to my past experiences).
I know plenty of non-smokers who only smoked cigarettes when smoking weed, it's the same as alcool since both mixed together have a coumpoud effect. Alcool sales could be impacted in some way as you usually drink less when stoned but I also found people were more likely to drink a few beers with a joint than without so it probably balances out.
It's all very anecdotal but still.
As for hemp, I've heard the stories too. I wouldn't think any major industry in the US would be affected by it at this point though. Clothing is pretty much made in third world countries now and I don't believe you could make hemp lumber could you ? It was always pretty much about hemp paper and the paper industry in North America isn't doing so hot either last I checked ... they're all closing down in my province anyway and moving god knows where. Probably countries where there's less strict environement regulations.
I don't think there's any justifiable economic reason not to legalize weed anymore thinking about it.
Socially and health-wise is a whole other debate though but I think it should be.
-
There are people that drink $10 1/2 gal. Vodka...and the vast majority of people smoking pot out there are not smoking high quality stuff. I am certain that any major tobacco company could grow and sell packs of joints or spliffs, or better yet, they could just sell 1 lb. bags for $50* if it was commercialized. The price to quality ratio wouldn't stay intact after legalization + commercialization; just cause it was $50* a lb. wouldn't mean it was dirt. Aside from that, I think that these companies would be perfectly capable of growing high grade shit. And even so, which do you think Johnnie Walker makes more money off of, cumulative Black Label sales, or cumulative Blue Label sales?
*Just a hypothetical number, don't treat it seriously.
And as far as "I was here and there shit sucked!" That's usually because you know the good hook ups in the area where you live, but if you go somewhere new, you're more likely to deal with some random dude dealing random weed.
-
I am not too sure that legalisation will help anything. It may put a few dealers out of business but it will also mean more lung disease and more problems on the roads as ever increasing numbers of people take up the drug. You are substituting 1 problem for another.
Cannabis is small beans. The way you stop drug dealing (and I mean the top class drugs like Amphetamine/heroin or the ones who bring sh*t loads of cannabis into UK) is to execute the dealers. Like China does.
Of course, we are too soft for that. Legalisaing a drug is simply saying you have failed to govern properly. I suppose we should legalise heroin next and legalise murder too. If you are legalising a drug to stop criminals, then you have failed to maintain law.
And legalising won't put them all out of business, far from it, it will mean black markets for th drug which will be cheaper than the tax the gov. shove on it.
I really fail to understand where this rosy picture of people dancing around in circles singing songs and clapping, holding hands, comes from when this argument of legalisation crops up. It is short sighted.
-
more lung disease and more problems on the roads as ever increasing numbers of people take up the drug.
lolno ;D
Legalisation takes away the allure of the drug
Cannabis is small beans. The way you stop drug dealing (and I mean the top class drugs like Amphetamine/heroin or the ones who bring sh*t loads of cannabis into UK) is to execute the dealers. Like China does.
Hardened and habitual criminals are missing the parts of the brain that tells them that they'll get caught. No penalty will act as a deterrent to people who don't think about the potential consequences of their actions.
And enjoy all the assorted legal problems that you'd have to deal with if you reintroduced the death penalty and applied it to organised (and therefore very wealthy) criminals.
Of course, we are too soft for that. Legalisaing a drug is simply saying you have failed to govern properly. I suppose we should legalise heroin next and legalise murder too. If you are legalising a drug to stop criminals, then you have failed to maintain law.
Except the drug should never have been illegal in the first place. The governments who made it illegal are the ones who failed to govern properly.
Face-saving is the most destructive phenomenon in politics. Never admit that you were wrong! Continue with failed policies!
You should join the Labour party.
And legalising won't put them all out of business, far from it, it will mean black markets for th drug which will be cheaper than the tax the gov. shove on it.
Just like there are huge black markets for tax-free alcohol and cigarettes? Oh wait; they're relatively small in comparison. Most people are willing to pay taxes for booze and cigarettes, even poor people.
I really fail to understand where this rosy picture of people dancing around in circles singing songs and clapping, holding hands, comes from when this argument of legalisation crops up. It is short sighted.
It comes from seeing the success in places where it has been legalised and where all your Daily Mail arguments have been proven wrong.
-
I actually agree with Kudistos on most of his points. It's been statiscally proven that harsher sentences (in this case, death penalty) doesn't deter criminals. Crime statistics don't go down with or without death penalty.
As for driving stoned, there are a few detectors that detect cannabis use based on saliva tests. Don't know how accurate they are as I haven't heard them being used by law enforcement anywhere yet but there's no need for such a tech now in most of the world. Legalize weed and you have instant demand from a bunch of police corps.
Also, it's not as if people aren't already driving stoned. The amount of people who have smoked weed in their lives vs the amount of people who haven't around me is maybe 50 to 1. And that's in all my social circles (family, friends, job, fellow school students when I was still in school). The society here is definitely more accepting of weed than in the US but having it illegal is just stupid at this point and feeding money to organised crime. Not that I believe this should be the main reason for it to be legalized though. Taxes and freeing up law enforcement to actually pursue real crimes would be far more beneficial if you ask me.
I'm also not too sure health would be badly affected by legalization of weed. It's actually been proven by medical research that weed has a protective agent where weed smokers actually have less incidence of lung cancer than most non smokers. Protective compunds within THC is said to cause this. There's far more throat cancer and schizofrenic incidence for long term users though so it's definitely not good for you but the amounts required would be like for alcoolics and liver syrosis here so it affects a minute % of the population as you'd need to be stoned 24/7 to start seeing those effects. And since you need money to buy weed and you usually aren't great at your job when stoned out your mind ...
Best way to get stoned is by eating it though. Did that once. Oh god that was unpleasant. And long.
-
Except the drug should never have been illegal in the first place.
The same way cigarettes (in USA) say "SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Cigarettes kill you!" and the labels on Liquor Bottles say "Don't drink if your pregnant" and "Drinking alcohol impairs your ability to drive and causes health problems" the same types of warnings would be on the commercialized pot. Not that these labels make a difference, but since we are using societal condonement as the basis for allowing the use of alcohol and tobacco, I don't see why Marijuana shouldn't make the cut. If you come up with a rational arguement for outlawing Marijuana, you almost have to concede that Alcohol and Tobacco must also be outlawed - which probably isn't the worst position to take. However, I think people should be able to make their own choices concerning their own health unless it poses a public safety hazard, but what public threat does legalized marijuana pose? Certainly nothing that hasn't already been permitted through other means.
-------------------------------------
If overall health of society is the goal, then keep it illegal, but be prepared to outlaw a million other substances, activities, etc. Even if it is outrageously stupid and detrimental, society permits us to do a million other things that are equally stupid and detrimental to our health anyway.
-
The death penalty does deter, and at the least it makes sure dealers cant come out and do it again. That's a fact. Most dealers come out and carry on. That's 1 thing the anti death penalty whiners cant argue with.
I'm also not too sure health would be badly affected by legalization of weed. It's actually been proven by medical research that weed has a protective agent where weed smokers actually have less incidence of lung cancer than most non smokers.
And are much more likely to get numerous other diseases like Emphysema. This idea that Cannabis smoking is good for you is as ridiculous as when they said same thing about Cigarette Smoking. Not to mention most people will smoke cannabis WITH tobacco, and will develop habits FROM cannabis smoking because of it. 2 people in my family got their additions through this.
I can't fathom why anyone has this idea that putting large amounts of hot air mixed with thousands of chemicals into your lungs can be anything other than outrageously stupid and detrimental. AS for that lung cancer claim, I am sure that research will find the opposite in years to come. Cancer is caued by the damage of cells which eventually leads to mutation (more damage = more chance). Cannabis smoking, logically, WILL raise cancer rates. It does damage the lungs, this is a fact.
The only people I ever see defending cannabis use and legalisation, are the people who have deluded themselves into believing that Cannabis is good for them, and are themselves, the end user.
The sheer delusion on this matter is approaching psychotic. Hopefully that isn't from the over indulgence on their favourite drug. :-D
-
The only people I ever see defending cannabis use and legalisation, are the people who have deluded themselves into believing that Cannabis is good for them, and are themselves, the end user.
Well, I have some bad news for you!
I think it's unhealthy, like any psychoactive drug, but I still think it should be legal. There are worse drugs that are perfectly legal, and in any case, I think that people should be free to abuse their own bodies in any way they wish.
The death penalty does deter, and at the least it makes sure dealers cant come out and do it again. That's a fact. Most dealers come out and carry on. That's 1 thing the anti death penalty whiners cant argue with.
Have fun catching them. And have fun when you eventually execute the wrong person.
-
yes the wrong one argument, the problem with that is, for every innocent person who is killed by accident, many more have died because of the criminal(s). That's the ultimate flaw with the "wrong one" argument.
It assumes that 1 innocent person is worth all the innocents who are the victim of crime because there is no deterrent whatsoever, and nothing to stop reoffending.
And a way around this is to say "life means life" for all 1st degree murder and drug dealing.
Ohhh but no.. course not. We cant do that either can we? The poor criminals need their playstations and TV. I take great comfort in knowing that this liberal experiment which has doomed my country will one day come to a sad end. The death penalty will return and when it does, we are never goin' back again.
edit:
If you come up with a rational arguement for outlawing Marijuana, you almost have to concede that Alcohol and Tobacco must also be outlawed -
Tobacco should be outlawed yes. Alcohol on other hand, in moderation, is not at all detrimental in comparison. Tobacco is always detrimental and affects other people directly. The only people who should be banned from Alcohol are the louts who can't handle it and have to binge drink 24/7.
There is a great power of socialising and a good time with alcohol if it is responsible. I can't use that argument with Cannabis and Tobacco, since both are detrimental to health, even in small quantities. Tobacco is also physically addictive.
-
The death penalty does deter, and at the least it makes sure dealers cant come out and do it again. That's a fact. Most dealers come out and carry on. That's 1 thing the anti death penalty whiners cant argue with.
And are much more likely to get numerous other diseases like Emphysema. This idea that Cannabis smoking is good for you is as ridiculous as when they said same thing about Cigarette Smoking. Not to mention most people will smoke cannabis WITH tobacco, and will develop habits FROM cannabis smoking because of it. 2 people in my family got their additions through this.
I can't fathom why anyone has this idea that putting large amounts of hot air mixed with thousands of chemicals into your lungs can be anything other than outrageously stupid and detrimental. AS for that lung cancer claim, I am sure that research will find the opposite in years to come. Cancer is caued by the damage of cells which eventually leads to mutation (more damage = more chance). Cannabis smoking, logically, WILL raise cancer rates. It does damage the lungs, this is a fact.
The only people I ever see defending cannabis use and legalisation, are the people who have deluded themselves into believing that Cannabis is good for them, and are themselves, the end user.
The sheer delusion on this matter is approaching psychotic. Hopefully that isn't from the over indulgence on their favourite drug. :-D
As I said, it does raise throat cancer by huge amounts as well as cause scyzophrenia and paranoia if you're a heavy long time user so I'm not saying its good for you. I actually quit years ago because it raises your heart rate like crazy, saps your energy and isn't great for concentration. Will never touch the stuff again in my life. However, I believe cigarettes are much worse than cannabis as I've never seen anyone some two packs a days worth ... *has flashback of camping trips* actually scratch that, nobody somking two packs a day's worth on a daily basis. Point is, THC has a protective effect on lungs by binding to some receptors in the lungs that would otherwise bind to chemical agents that could cause cancer or somesuch. Look it up, it's pretty well documented.
And as for death penalty, I'm too lazy to dig out statistics but there were multiple statistical studies that proved violent crime rates weren't affected by the death penalty. Some of the most violent states in the US carry the death penalty. Not an effective detterent when people don't think they'll be caught. The punishment must be severe enough to deter for a detterent to be effective but life in prison seems to have as bad an effect as death penalty. And multiple studies have shown that unless you significantly increase the risk of people being caught (law enforcement, sting operations, double agents, etc in this case) than even stricter punishement makes no difference.
Drinking and driving is actually a great example. When fines and jail time increases, it actually doesn't reduce the amount of offenders drinking and driving significantly because people have no fear of getting caught because there's not enough controls (except maybe during the Holidays). A sanction is only effective if you get caught.
-
yes the wrong one argument, the problem with that is, for every innocent person who is killed by accident, many more have died because of the criminal(s). That's the ultimate flaw with the "wrong one" argument.
It assumes that 1 innocent person is worth all the innocents who are the victim of crime because there is no deterrent whatsoever, and nothing to stop reoffending.
If we stopped worrying about the "wrong one", we'd set a very dangerous precedent. It should be obvious that saying that innocent people can be executed by the state "for the greater good" might lead to a few problems.
I take great comfort in knowing that this liberal experiment which has doomed my country will one day come to a sad end. The death penalty will return and when it does, we are never goin' back again.
I can only think of one plausible scenario in which the death penalty could be reintroduced here, and I very much doubt you'd like it.
-
yes the wrong one argument, the problem with that is, for every innocent person who is killed by accident, many more have died because of the criminal(s). That's the ultimate flaw with the "wrong one" argument.
It assu
Tobacco should be outlawed yes. Alcohol on other hand, in moderation, is not at all detrimental in comparison. Tobacco is always detrimental and affects other people directly. The only people who should be banned from Alcohol are the louts who can't handle it and have to binge drink 24/7.
There is a great power of socialising and a good time with alcohol if it is responsible. I can't use that argument with Cannabis and Tobacco, since both are detrimental to health, even in small quantities. Tobacco is also physically addictive.
Alcool is far more damaging to the body than weed. Even in small quantities. Someone having 5 drinks a day vs 5 joints a day will be in much worse shape when he's 60 than the one smoking weed. And that's coming from somebody who drinks every now and then but never smokes anymore.
-
5 pints is not comparable by volume to 5 joints (and again joints can lead directly to tobacco addition)., That argument isn't fair at all. Responsible drinking is by far better than "responsible" weed smoking, because such a thing does not exist. Most people out for a drink won't approach that in 1 night (binge drinkers will of course)., How much weed does someone pump into their lungs in a party?
Not a good comparison at all.
=====edit
I have a drink every week or 2, and usually around 4 pints. If I did the same with cannabis, I would be addicted to cigs already, and I am betting my lungs would be in a bad state. Which is worse?
=======
And I will wager you that when (because it will be back, you can trust me on that) the death penalty does return here, most crime falls like a ton of bricks. Comparing different states and different countries is very deceptive statistics, and is the reason why Anti-Death Penalty people use them. There are a ton of variables and reasons why the statistics don't work when you do that.
The ultimate argument that no one can argue with is that once a criminal is dead, he will never reoffend again.
-
Guise, I think we should stop disagreeing with Seifer. I foresee another "incident" happening if his lack of knowledge or critical thinking ability keeps being pointed out, and the mods will ban us for "baiting" him by not telling him that he's right.
-
Kud, if you are wondering why you aren't getting direct responses from me, it is because you have been on ignore. I do that in this section from now on with regards to yourself.
I had a look at your last post (can't help the odd peep) to see if you had mended your ways but sadly found another ad hominem. So you will remain on my ignore list until you learn.
-
Kud, if you are wondering why you aren't getting direct responses from me, it is because you have been on ignore. I do that in this section from now on with regards to yourself.
I had a look at your last post (can't help the odd peep) to see if you had mended your ways but sadly found another ad hominem. So you will remain on my ignore list until you learn.
Oh lulz, Seifer puts anyone who disagrees with him on his ignore list. And can't help but peek to see whether anyone has said anything. So he'll probably read this. :mrgreen:
It shows how little interest he has in debate ;D
-
I can't help but picture a totalitarian regime whose flag reads "Do what is healthy for you...or else"
-
I can't help but picture a totalitarian regime whose flag reads "Do what is healthy for you...or else"
I think they'd look something like this:
(http://i53.tinypic.com/a9pbhd.jpg)
Which reminds me...
In Britain, the political system is so anti-drug that the Labour government a couple of years ago fired a "scientific advisor" for refusing to lie about the dangers of drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#Government_positions).
They weren't very happy about him producing this:
(http://i56.tinypic.com/fad2ir.png)
-
Alright DLPB, I got halfway through the first page and almost puked at how much of a tool you are, but, I'll try to keep this civil.
First off, Marijuana does almost no harm whatsoever when smoked. Nearly every study done within the last 40 years have said that there is no discernable link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer when smoked. Other diseases, probably not, but they haven't been tested for as stringently. Now, even beyond that, there are plenty of other ways to ingest Marijuana. I could put it in a vaporizer, I could make some Cannabutter and cook with it, I could brew a form of tea with it, hell, if I were really out of my mind, I could probably just extract the active compounds and shoot them up.
Even beyond that, what is your fixation on saving everybody from harm? I am an adult, and I believe I am responsible enough to choose to smoke Marijuana if I so choose. I can weigh the pros and cons, and decide if the pros outweigh the cons, and in my opinion, for Marijuana, they do. In my case, while I do like just going and smoking a blunt/joint/bowl, it does help me mentally. It allows me to be in a more relaxed state where I'm not jittery and nervous, and constantly stuttering. It allows me to actually be a social person and interact with my friends better. It gives me a different perspective on life, that makes this world not suck donkey dick. Yet according to you, because it may (but probably not) give me emphysema when smoked, I shouldn't be allowed to give myself all these benefits, but instead, be an introverted shut-in who is too nervous to talk to new people or even socialize with the people I already know, and have to go to a psychiatrist for depression and be on an anti-depressant, and 12 other pills to counteract the side-effects of that one pill. While self-medication can be harmful, if one does some research, and actually looks into what they will be doing to themselves, they can come up with a fairly good estimate of how it will effect them.
Stop sucking the Government's dick and open your eyes, the US Government has been lying about Marijuana for the past 80 years, I hate to sound like a crazy conspiracy nut but it's true. That, is also the main reason I doubt Marijuana will be legalized any time soon, it would force the Gov't to say "Oh yeah, by the way, we've been feeding you false information about this for almost a century, sorry about that" which would cause the general populace to start questioning the government, and they wouldn't like that very much
DLPB: stop being a useless tool.
-
DLPB: stop being a useless tool.
Aaaaaand you just went on his ignore list
Also, note that Seifer whines about people making ad hominem attacks, but feels no shame in saying:
The sheer delusion on this matter is approaching psychotic. Hopefully that isn't from the over indulgence on their favourite drug. :-D
That couldn't be hypocrisy, could it? Surely not!
-
I see the end of completely unrelated coming soon.
-
First off, Marijuana does almost no harm whatsoever when smoked.
I stopped reading there. I refer you back to what I said about how the users of the drug like to believe in the best outcome, but the truth is pumping thousands of chemicals and hot smoke into your lungs cannot be anything other than dangerous to ones health. To believe otherwise is crazy. MY own mother's lungs were crippled by the drug, do not tell me it is OK.
They said same thing about Tobacco too....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/684328.stm
There is a public perception that marijuana smoking has little adverse effect on physical health.
Dr Martin Johnson
Regular smokers of cannabis are at increased risk of developing the potentially fatal lung disease emphysema, claim doctors based in Bristol.
Dr Martin Johnson said in the journal Thorax: "Smoking three to four marijuana cigarettes per day produces a comparable histological effect on the airways to smoking 20 tobacco cigarettes daily.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3293459.stm
Even short term use of cannabis can damage the lungs of young people, say researchers.
But they know nothing, and my first hand experience means nothing. Of course, you will one day realise you were wrong ;)
When people have to resort to direct attacks on an individual in debate, they have lost credibility... I am done here :P
Oh and I am all for you smoking cannabis if you all go to 1 island and stay there. I don't want affected by your behaviour or have to foot your lung bills. We have enough problems in the world without adding another one (cannabis being legal) to it.
-
I see the end of completely unrelated coming soon.
Why?
Because one individual, who shouldn't even be here, seeing as he has been permabanned 27 times, is extremely antisocial?
I don't see why we should all suffer the consequences of his actions. The easiest solution to this little problem (a storm in a teacup if there ever was one; it will be forgotten in a week) would be to ban the person who is on a lifetime ban.
EDIT:
And now that I think about it, is there even a problem?
If we can just put people on ignore whenever they disagree with us, there should be no more flame wars. That's a far less drastic solution.
-
Smoking weed can cause symptoms similiar to some forms of schizophrenia, and maybe screw with someones inhibitions (like not stealing things), but you have to smoke a lot of it. I mean, bags and bags of it weekly, all the time.
True life story:
I was once persuaded by a flatmate to let an ex-bandmate of his crash at our apartment for a few weeks. The whole fucking time he was there, his girlfriend, who bought his weed, was there, and the only thing I ever saw them do was smoke pot in my bathroom, eat, sleep, and attempt to be furtive while screwing behind the couch. They did this all day, every fucking day, for as long as they lived there. And when they finally left, I found that my Super Nintendo and my entire collection of SNES games had found there way to the local used game store, along with 3/4 of my CD collection and 3 binders full of DVDs, PS1 games, and PS2 games, all of which I had let him or his girlfriend borrow on one occasion or another. When I asked him if he was done with my stuff (after I bought what was left of it back from the store), he smiled and said he'd have it for me in a tommorow.
So yeah. I don't think weed is nearly as bad for you as cigarettes (expensive, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, enphesema, smokers cough, 2nd hand smoke, decreased physical fitness, asthma, skin irritation/excema, it stinks, teeth discoloration, bad skin) or alcohol (diabetes, liver cirrosis, high blood pressure/heart failure, addiction, zero impulse control, physical/sexual/emotional/mental/financial abuse, drunk driving, incompetence, ruined careers, mental health/avoidance issues), but it's still pretty fucking awful. And I don't think we should legalize it because it's harmless - it's not - but that we should legalize it because it's about as bad as alcohol and cigarettes, and we don't need to spend trillions more dollars on a prohibition policy for something equivalent to booze and smokes. Also, if we legalize the sale of weed (and maybe a few hallucinagens like igogaine, which is so intense that no one in their right minds would ever want to use it again) within - and only within, no imports or exports - the USA, we'll deligitimize and defund those who peddle weed and hallucinagens along with harder drugs, and perhaps break weeds status as a gateway drug, since it will be normal everyday people who grow it and sell it, not murderous mexican meth lords.
I doubt that will happen though. If we didn't have the weed boogeyman to be afraid of, then we might start wondering why most of the drugs most commonly abused in the USA are perscription drugs.
-
Smoking weed can cause symptoms similiar to some forms of schizophrenia, and maybe screw with someones inhibitions (like not stealing things), but you have to smoke a lot of it. I mean, bags and bags of it weekly, all the time.
And since it's less addictive than alcohol, these problems are less common.
I was once persuaded by a flatmate to let an ex-bandmate of his crash at our apartment for a few weeks. The whole fucking time he was there, his girlfriend, who bought his weed, was there, and the only thing I ever saw them do was smoke pot in my bathroom, eat, sleep, and attempt to be furtive while screwing behind the couch. They did this all day, every fucking day, for as long as they lived there. And when they finally left, I found that my Super Nintendo and my entire collection of SNES games had found there way to the local used game store, along with 3/4 of my CD collection and 3 binders full of DVDs, PS1 games, and PS2 games, all of which I had let him or his girlfriend borrow on one occasion or another. When I asked him if he was done with my stuff (after I bought what was left of it back from the store), he smiled and said he'd have it for me in a tommorow.
So, just like living with an alcoholic? Except with fewer fights, I presume?
break weeds status as a gateway drug, since it will be normal everyday people who grow it and sell it, not murderous mexican meth lords.
Exactly!
What really grinds my gears about the "it's a gateway drug" argument is that it's only a gateway drug because it's illegal. The argument that it must be kept illegal because a situation that only occurs when it's illegal is utterly incomprehensible. I can't think of anything more backwards. You may as well just say "it should be kept illegal because the people who use it are criminals!". It's the same "logic".
I doubt that will happen though. If we didn't have the weed boogeyman to be afraid of, then we might start wondering why most of the drugs most commonly abused in the USA are perscription drugs.
And I'm sure that the pharmaceutical industry wouldn't want people to think about that...
-
I don't get why people say it causes NO harm whatsoever, it may be very little compared to other things, but of all the people I know who do it, not 1 of them can ever really remember what they were doing while they were smoking it.
Think about it logically, if it can cause you to forget or not even realize what you are doing while you are on it, doesn't that mean it has to effect your brain chemistry in some way?
Saying it doesn't affect you negatively is just arrogant, seeing as how it must affect you somehow, in order to make you feel good.
Even medicinal drugs have many adverse and bad effects, a lot of countries without any medicinal drugs aside from very natural ingredients have people who have healthier and longer lives then large countries like the US.
-
I don't get why people say it causes NO harm whatsoever
They're wrong, of course.
But it grinds my gears when people act as if the whole argument for legalising it will crumble if this point is proven wrong. It's a straw man. It's bad form to only argue against the weakest point that is made in favour of a proposition.
-
And since it's less addictive than alcohol, these problems are less common.
Agreed. Being flatmates with a fairly talented mucisian, that guy was basically the only complete sh*tstain and weed addict I ever met. Compare that to 6/10 people being complete sh*tstain alcohol addicts while I was in the military.
So, just like living with an alcoholic? Except with fewer fights, I presume?
Yep. He didn't fight back, he just lied.
And I'm sure that the pharmaceutical industry wouldn't want people to think about that...
Tell me about it.
Even medicinal drugs have many adverse and bad effects, a lot of countries without any medicinal drugs aside from very natural ingredients have people who have healthier and longer lives then large countries like the US.
Exactly. If you OD on tylenol (or is it aspirin?), it can destroy your liver. Side effects, you know.
-
I don't condone any drugs, and personally I don't even drink alcohol. I'm aware of the direct and indirect risks to my health and well-being and I choose to avoid them. I wish more people would do the same.
But it isn't government's job to protect us from our own stupid decisions. Lighting a stick of tar and posion on fire, sticking it in your mouth and deeply inhaling the smoke, for example, is a very stupid decision, but unless you're exposing unwilling other people to it, or your use of it is impeding someone else's well being, you'll simply reap the consequences of your own actions.
The government could still protect us from other people's stupid decisions, though. On that scale, I've seen far less need for control of marijuana than of tobacco, or especially of alcohol. Then again, if marijuana use became as common as tobacco, I'm sure we could all worry about the second-hand smoke - and yes, smoking marijuana alone is still bad enough for your respiratory system to be a concern, even if it's not as bad as tobacco (about which studies conflict, probably largely due to the agenda of the people backing and/or conducting each study).
Here in the good old US of A (a phrase I use with more than a little sarcasm), outlawing irresponsible use and behavior seems no more or less effective a deterrent of that behavior than outlawing the substance itself. Even a fairly accurate (results may vary in your district) anti-drug education system seems to have little impact, as most of the people who were in my very same classes have gone on to make the decisions we were warned against. People accuse health education of lying at least as much as the drug proponents in the first place. My classes were a little overboard, to be certain, but mostly correct. The best we can do is try to eliminate the misinformation, which you can see from this thread alone is abound on all sides.
There are few options remaining. I would discourage the death penalty because we have more than the occasional wrongful conviction (results may vary in your state), and even with overwhelming evidence of innocence it's nearly impossible to reverse a death sentence. We could try even harder to keep drug industry advertisements from encouraging poor behavior, but freedom of speech protects even those who deliberately distribute misinformation en masse. I guess we could penalize doing such for profit. Most of the cultural encouragement to do drugs is more subtle and psychological than outright lying to you, though.
So the government does the same thing I do -- we shrug our shoulders, encourage proper education and responsible behavior, hope people make better decisions, and deal with the idiot fallout in the meantime. The revolution must be in cultural mindset, not legislation.
-
They're wrong, of course.
But it grinds my gears when people act as if the whole argument for legalising it will crumble if this point is proven wrong. It's a straw man. It's bad form to only argue against the weakest point that is made in favour of a proposition.
But also, it still causes some harm.
Just because it feels good cutting yourself doesn't mean you should do it.
Not saying they should use that basis for whether it's legal or not, because it should be up to the user whether they do these things or not, but that doesn't mean I want people blowing it around all over either.
Whether it's a little or a lot, it's still not good to do something harmful to yourself.
-
Just because it feels good cutting yourself doesn't mean you should do it.
O_______________O
MAXIMUM EMO!
Whether it's a little or a lot, it's still not good to do something harmful to yourself.
Maybe, but people should have the right to do it.
-
I have a friend who used to do that lol, not me. It freaked me out although I understand the reasons he did it, I never saw how it would feel good.
And also for your second point, I edited my post while you were saying that.
-
Here in the good old US of A (a phrase I use with more than a little sarcasm), outlawing irresponsible use and behavior seems no more or less effective a deterrent of that behavior than outlawing the substance itself. Even a fairly accurate (results may vary in your district) anti-drug education system seems to have little impact, as most of the people who were in my very same classes have gone on to make the decisions we were warned against. People accuse health education of lying at least as much as the drug proponents in the first place. My classes were a little overboard, to be certain, but mostly correct. The best we can do is try to eliminate the misinformation, which you can see from this thread alone is abound on all sides.
What can I say? Kids are dumb, and getting them to not do dumb things is a mystery no parent can solve.
There are few options remaining. I would discourage the death penalty because we have more than the occasional wrongful conviction (results may vary in your state), and even with overwhelming evidence of innocence it's nearly impossible to reverse a death sentence. We could try even harder to keep drug industry advertisements from encouraging poor behavior, but freedom of speech protects even those who deliberately distribute misinformation en masse. I guess we could penalize doing such for profit. Most of the cultural encouragement to do drugs is more subtle and psychological than outright lying to you, though.
I think we should have a death penalty, but I don't like how it doesn't have any materia growth. Also, I think the standards for applying the death penalty as a punishment for a crime should be higher than those required for life in prison, because the idea of executing an innocent is so horrifying.
-
They're wrong, of course.
But it grinds my gears when people act as if the whole argument for legalising it will crumble if this point is proven wrong. It's a straw man. It's bad form to only argue against the weakest point that is made in favour of a proposition.
I'm not saying it causes NO harm, but the harm it does cause, is negligible. Especially compared to alcohol and tobacco. As far as what Jenova's Witness said about people can't really remember what they do when stoned, I want to know what they're smoking, because that only happens to me if I smoke a lot of it in one sitting.
-
but the harm it does cause, is negligible
What don't you understand about research and logic that suggests it is just as bad (and worse in some areas)? That it is pumping hot air and chemicals into the lungs? It isn't negligible. Your argument is based on a rosy picture created by your hope that you are right when you aren't.
They said these exact same things about Tobacco 40 years ago. What is a hard to grasp here? Either you are right, and pumping hot smoke into your lungs is cool, or I am right, and it isn't.
-
What don't you understand about research and logic that suggests it is just as bad (and worse in some areas)? That it is pumping hot air and chemicals into the lungs? It isn't negligible. Your argument is based on a rosy picture created by your hope that you are right when you aren't.
They said these exact same things about Tobacco 40 years ago. What is a hard to grasp here? Either you are right, and pumping hot smoke into your lungs is cool, or I am right, and it isn't.
Based on personal experience, when I smoked cigs, I had a nagging cough, stopped smoking cigs, I coughed like hell for a few days, and then nothing, been smoking a lot of weed in the interim. I'd say it's negligible. Even if it isn't negligible though, why should you be allowed to tell me what I can and can't do to my own body?
-
BY that token I guess I shouldn't tell you to murder or not and you should be allowed to get on with it?
Doesn't work that way. If you want to do it, I have no problems as long as you sign a form that every illness related to smoking you must pay for out of your own pocket and not tax. The other issue I have is that smoke harms others, and will your own kids if you have them and smoke near them.
There is no such thing as second had liver disease (alcohol)
-
BY that token I guess I shouldn't tell you to murder or not and you should be allowed to get on with it?
Doesn't work that way. If you want to do it, I have no problems as long as you sign a form that every illness related to smoking you must pay for out of your own pocket and not tax. The other issue I have is that smoke harms others, and will your own kids if you have them and smoke near them.
There is no such thing as second had liver disease (alcohol)
and most studies that say second hand smoke is harmful are flawed by design and do not reflect real-world situations.
-
Oh please, not that one again. If you are shoving something that is proven to be harmful into any lung, it is not a good thing.
-
You're rather good at dodging my question of "What gives you the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body?"
-
Why?
Because one individual, who shouldn't even be here, seeing as he has been permabanned 27 times, is extremely antisocial?
I don't see why we should all suffer the consequences of his actions. The easiest solution to this little problem (a storm in a teacup if there ever was one; it will be forgotten in a week) would be to ban the person who is on a lifetime ban.
EDIT:
And now that I think about it, is there even a problem?
If we can just put people on ignore whenever they disagree with us, there should be no more flame wars. That's a far less drastic solution.
Ignore is a voluntary thing that I can not enforce.
I see a few ways this will play out:
1. Everyone decides to play nice. Stop calling people idiots and whiners. Nothing happens.
2. People still call each other names and come whining to me when someone calls them something. I get pissed off and either, A: Ban everyone that was involved wether or not they started it, B: Remove completely unrelated entirely, C: Deny access to unrelated for everyone involved.
I would much rather the first option happened, but at this point it does not matter much to me. Completely Unrelated has nothing to do with the goals of this forum so it is of no significant loss to me. Just means less work for the staff.
-
Ignore is a voluntary thing that I can not enforce.
I see a few ways this will play out:
1. Everyone decides to play nice. Stop calling people idiots and whiners. Nothing happens.
2. People still call each other names and come whining to me when someone calls them something. I get pissed off and either, A: Ban everyone that was involved wether or not they started it, B: Remove completely unrelated entirely, C: Deny access to unrelated for everyone involved.
I would much rather the first option happened, but at this point it does not matter much to me. Completely Unrelated has nothing to do with the goals of this forum so it is of no significant loss to me. Just means less work for the staff.
Or you could make a rule against harassing the mods, if that's the problem.
Or you could just ignore people who spam PMs. Your main concern seems to be lightening your own workload, so this should work wonders.
You keep on acting like being a moderator is some kind of divine calling. It isn't. You don't have to do it and you don't have to take notice of every single PM sent because of every little squabble. The third thing in this thread that grinds my gears if you acting as if you're forced to do this job and then taking it out on all of us.
What confuses me is that for most of the first year or so that I was here, the forum worked perfectly well with hardly any moderation at all. There were no active global mods in them days; they just came when there was a serious issue. Now there are four of you and apparently the workload is so great that you're all having nervous breakdowns. I don't get it.
-
kud, we arent stupid. It is clear to see that you were the first to try baiting and you did it blatantly, and then when a mod gets pissed you claim it is a conspiracy and bad 'ol seifer needs banning cause he shouldnt be here.
Get real.
-
kud, we arent stupid. It is clear to see that you were the first to try baiting and you did it blatantly, and then when a mod gets pissed you claim it is a conspiracy and bad 'ol seifer needs banning cause he shouldnt be here.
Get real.
I thought I was on ignore.
I also thought that I had adopted a pro-legalisation stance long before you came to the thread. Am I baiting if, after you come to a thread, I continue to make an argument that I was already making?
Completely Unrelated is going to be deleted all because you start harassing the mods every time someone disagrees with you. You're ruining it for everyone.
The hilarious thing is that this is exactly how your fight with Jari started. You were losing a fight that you started, so you started harassing him with PMs, ordering(!) him to get rid of those nasty people. It backfired. Then you started harassing Qhimm to get rid of Jari. It didn't work. Now you're still harassing people through PM whenever you don't get your way. THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS! >:(
It's a shame that CU is going to be deleted. So many people enjoyed coming here and chatting away, having fun. But some people seem determined to destroy everything.
Anyway, regardless of whether CU gets deleted and regardless of whether you have me on ignore or not, I'm putting you on ignore. In the unlikely event that your behaviour doesn't get the board deleted, it will be a breath of fresh air to be able to have a thread where we can talk about a controversial subject without resorting to name calling.
-
It was you who started the ad hominem dude, and it generally always is ;) We always seem to keep coming back to what I did (all for nothing hmm) over a year ago too, where you are concerned. regardless yes, I think you having me on ignore as well will be great.\
While we are at it, your friend Jari tried sabotaging the forum, and don't think I am that stupid that I don't know what you are about as well. 2 peas in a pod.
-
I cannot speak for when you joined as I was a year behind you. I do know that much of the time I have been here there has been need for moderators. Being an admin (or moderator) is not a divine calling, but it is a job that I take seriously. Part of that job is to try and make these forums run smoothly, reduce or eliminate flame wars, and try to encourage the main point of this forum; to learn about and improve the Sqeenix games that we all enjoy. Completely Unrelated helps none of these goals and hinders some quite a bit. In my honest opinion completely unrelated is completely useless. Theres a whole fucking internet out there to have squabbles on and read the latest news.
I need to think on this some more.
-
I cannot speak for when you joined as I was a year behind you. I do know that much of the time I have been here there has been need for moderators. Being an admin (or moderator) is not a divine calling, but it is a job that I take seriously. Part of that job is to try and make these forums run smoothly, reduce or eliminate flame wars, and try to encourage the main point of this forum; to learn about and improve the Sqeenix games that we all enjoy. Completely Unrelated helps none of these goals and hinders some quite a bit. In my honest opinion completely unrelated is completely useless. Theres a whole fucking internet out there to have squabbles on and read the latest news.
I need to think on this some more.
Clearly you do need to think about it some more.
The forums would be much poorer for having lost CU. The number of posts you've had here suggests that you might miss it too.
CU has also been around for an awfully long time. How come it never caused problems before, but it is now apparently the forum's kryptonite? Don't say that it's because there are more flamewars nowadays, because there aren't. I genuinely don't see any difference between CU now and CU years ago, and yet you seem to think that CU is now the cancer that is killing the qhimm forums. The only cancer killing the forums is this attitude of "I must moderate every single post!". We don't need this attitude. We never needed it before and we don't need it now.
-
Clearly you do need to think about it some more.
The forums would be much poorer for having lost CU. The number of posts you've had here suggests that you might miss it too.
CU has also been around for an awfully long time. How come it never caused problems before, but it is now apparently the forum's kryptonite? Don't say that it's because there are more flamewars nowadays, because there aren't. I genuinely don't see any difference between CU now and CU years ago, and yet you seem to think that CU is now the cancer that is killing the qhimm forums. The only cancer killing the forums is this attitude of "I must moderate every single post!". We don't need this attitude. We never needed it before and we don't need it now.
You must have a poor memory. I clearly remember Unrelated being the reason moderation was needed in the first place. Anyways you are entitled to you opinion, even though it has no bearing on what the staff decides.
-
You must have a poor memory. I clearly remember Unrelated being the reason moderation was needed in the first place.
Oh yes, the forum needs some moderation. We need spambots and people with the wrong amount of chromosomes to be banned.
What it doesn't need is moderator intervention every single time two people disagree.
Anyways you are entitled to you opinion, even though it has no bearing on what the staff decides.
Oh no, it has no bearing.
You'll just realise that I was right six months after making a disastrous decision. That's how things work around here.
-
Le sigh.
Locked until I decide what to do.
Good night.
-
Well now, this thread has sure turned interesting all of a sudden. Look, I won't lie to you guys, I kind of miss the days where I was the only one with power and could go around banning who I pleased and making all of the rules, but fact is, that was a lot of work and it made coming here quite miserable.
Here are my thoughts, this thread is fine and has had attention brought to it much to prematurely. However, both sl1982 and Bosola appear to think otherwise, and though I may disagree, I will not be one to undermine either of them. If they choose to ban people or even close this whole forum, I will definitely express my opinion on the matter, but if they ultimately feel they are making the best decision, so be it.
HOWEVER, my whole point of making this post is to make it once again perfectly clear to everyone (specifically the 3 involved in this thread) that if I feel this thread or any future threads reach the point of flaming others, it doesn't matter how long you've been here or how much you've contributed, I will ban you and continue banning any proxies you may decide to hide behind.
Now then, here is what I suggest happen, the lot of you put each other on your ignore lists. Why? Because whenever you're in a thread together it always turns to whining and finger pointing, and has really gotten old at this point. It's not even interesting to read anymore.
-
Access to unrelated has been removed from the offending members. Access to these forums is a privilege not a right.