Mexican drug lord thanks El Presidente Obama for cannabis prohibition

[Kudistos Megistos]

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:



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.

They weren't very happy about him producing this:

[Cupcake]

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.

[Kudistos Megistos]

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. 

That couldn't be hypocrisy, could it? Surely not!

[sl1982]

I see the end of completely unrelated coming soon.

[DLPB_]

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

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.

[Kudistos Megistos]

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.

[Jenova's Witness]

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.

[Kudistos Megistos]

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...

[BloodShot]

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.

[Kudistos Megistos]

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.

[Jenova's Witness]

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.

[zoostation]

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.

[BloodShot]

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.

[Kudistos Megistos]

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.

[BloodShot]

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.

[Jenova's Witness]

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.

[Cupcake]

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.

[DLPB_]

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.

[Cupcake]

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?

[DLPB_]

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)

[Cupcake]

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.

[DLPB_]

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.

[Cupcake]

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?"

[sl1982]

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.

[Kudistos Megistos]

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.