>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

WTF, potent marijuana? WTH does that even mean? It isn't a fucken chemical, its a fucken plant, idiot.


It means the Ratio of Psychoactive components to plant matter are higher now than they where fifty years ago, which is very much true for a lot of strains. This has been done by breeders through different methods combining different strains and only using the ones that held the result you where looking for.

The potency argument is idiotic because you do not smoke cannabis until you cannot function you smoke it to get the desired effect on the body and stop. So what this means is that your Cannabis will last longer and you inherently smoke less at a time because you are getting a bigger bang for your buck. Smoke the same amount of Mexican ditch weed and a higher potent "sour diesel" strain or the like, and you may "green out " ( as some people who smoke too much puke/get sick) but you will not die.

On the other hand, drink 355 ml of grain alcohol in one shot, as compared to a 355 ml beer and you could die of alcohol poisoning. The potency angle is just completely fallible.


Or where you being facetious ?

Edit- Tobacco leaf is just a plant as well but you can die from handling that with just your bare hands, as well Cannabis' main ingredients are chemicals, just as Nicotine is and pretty well everything else thats mind altering. Just because its a plant does not mean the chemicals it produces can not harm you.

These guys are great. Their recent nicotine addiction clip was brilliant and missed by most.

anger is something i am quick to as a result of my PTSD unfortunately, particularly on subjects i am passionate about. Therapy is a long ongoin process =)
apologies all around for my curt manner.

now, to the dialogue at hand.

well firstly those statistics, since you've conceded them to be mere presuppositions, are exactly that: presuppositions. There arent any real statistics that i could produce to rebut it, however, if we use alcohol consumption and prohibition as a model, one could expect as much as a 30% increase in heroin use with its legalization, which is to say, not much at all. the idea of everyone and their mom suddenly hopping on the heroin train is a ridiculous fantasy at best.

while you may be right about the lifelong heroin user, i dont have to speculate about long term alcohol abusers maintaining healthy lives. that being said, this defense (if youre using it as one) is a moot point unless you support alcohol prohibition as well.

putting away traffickers in the netherlands would be the same in the states were drugs regulated and controlled. again, alcohol is the model for this. You think its legal to traffic alcohol just because alcohol is made legal? nope, you'll still get canned for that. follow the model. sticking with heroin, were it to be made legal its not something you'd pick up at your local grocery store. if the government regulates and controls it, firstly you will have fewer overdoses because the potency will be precisely known and consistent (the same as alcohol). Overdoses from heroin (among other things) is largely due to unexpected higher than "normal" street potency's. The same thing occurred during prohibition with alcohol poisoning. Potency would be known in the same way alcohol content (proofs) and tar and nicotine content in cigarettes (labeled right on the packs and cartons).

Now, not anyone can purchase cigarettes or alcohol or a gun for that matter. precisely because of regulation and control. in the same way, not everyone should be able to purchase marijuana, heroin, or whatever your poison is. regulated and controlled.

now i flatly rejected your hypothetical position because it was absurd (much like my brain synapse one was). you and i could draw up all sorts of imaginative what-ifs but theyre not gonna serve any purpose other than drawing up a good laugh.

you know, i also believe personal freedoms end where harm to others begin. but this certainly doesnt support your prohibition stance at all. Looking at it another way, you have the right to drink as little or as much alcohol as you want. but if you get too drunk and drive (and get caught) you'll get arrested. so while you still have that freedom to drink alcohol, that same freedom does not infringe on my freedom to press charges should you become too intoxicated and harm me. i know that sounds a bit convoluted, im not as articulate as i'd like to be right now but you catch my drift ya?

in closing, every piece of your defense doesnt hold an ounce of water when held up to the model of prohibition of the 20's, it's "side effects", and it's eventual outcome.

sorry again for being so curt earlier. therapy for my condition takes a good while =)

@shinyblurry

jesus you still dont get it do you?
no one, i say again, FUCKING NO ONE is goddamn fucking promoting an anything goes, all is permissable attitude. the proponents of decriminalization and the lifting of prohibition on drugs, prostitution, etc want regulation and control not anarchy for fuck sake so come off that fucking horse. is this just an entirely foreign concept to you? because it fucking shouldnt goddamn be.
you dont think there is any such thing as a responsible use of heroin? ya, youre right, im gonna have to fucking heartily disagree.

im curious, in what ways would the decriminalization, regulation, and control of these things make society quantifiably worse? i'd love to hear that one.

many people would fall into addiction and die that otherwise wouldnt you say? cigarettes and the nicotine and other chemicals found within are one of, if not the most addictive substances known to man. They kill over 400,000 people a year in the US alone. all other illicit drugs both direct and indirect? 17,000. what was your point again? oh you dont fucking have one? didnt think so.

we really don't seem to know much about human nature? i'd say you sure as hell dont know a goddamn thing about human history. hows that? keep on with your blanket prohibition of this shit. create more capones and create entire illegal industries. you dont have a fucking clue

fuck i wish i had a joint to smoke

Do you think nicotine happy meals would be fine so long as they don't come with a toy? That's what SF is saying. They're not trying to ban unhealthy food; they're banning toys. I'd have mixed feelings about them banning the food, too, but at least they'd be directly addressing the problem.

>> ^misterwight:

To use The Daily Show's argument, to all of you boo-hooing about the death of corporate freedom, would you support McDonald's if it decided to start adding nicotine to its kids' meals? Some other artificial addictive, yet unregulated substance? I mean, it's not like anyone's forcing the parents to take their kids there.


@kceaton1: close your tags!

>> ^misterwight:

To use The Daily Show's argument, to all of you boo-hooing about the death of corporate freedom, would you support McDonald's if it decided to start adding nicotine to its kids' meals? Some other artificial addictive, yet unregulated substance? I mean, it's not like anyone's forcing the parents to take their kids there.


To use your argument, you shouldn't be able to cash in your Marlboro points for prizes.

To use The Daily Show's argument, to all of you boo-hooing about the death of corporate freedom, would you support McDonald's if it decided to start adding nicotine to its kids' meals? Some other artificial addictive, yet unregulated substance? I mean, it's not like anyone's forcing the parents to take their kids there.

Gunrock, what you still fail to understand or acknowledge is..

HER JOB is to be EXCLUSIVE WANK MATERIAL in order TO ATTRACT MORE EYES to the gossip in the SUN tabloid.

She's not offering her general knowledge of a particular subject.
She's not offering technical skills in a particular discipline.
She's offering her tits and hips for display in exchange for money.

She's paid to objectify herself. Meanwhile, most of us are taught that objectifying other humans is immoral.

So it doesn't matter if she's a rocket scientist that dicovered a cure for cancer, aids, alcohol & nicotine addiction, world hungry, global warming AND the lost city of Atlantis..

..if her job & what everyone knows her for.. is givin' handies behind the local bowling alley.


[Edit: I'm not equating prostitution with modeling. But it's objectification all the same.]


>> ^MarineGunrock:

"... just recently finished college where she achieved four A levels and an AS in psychology, theater studies, media studies, critical thinking, and general studies. "
Obviously she's not stupid and has more to offer than just her goodies. Maybe she actually enjoys what she does?

OK, prove that the U.S stifles science. More science gets done in the U.S than anywhere else. If anything has been holding science back it's religion and Islam is the worst culprit.

I don't think anyone should try to shift the conversation onto the more egregious aspects of U.S foreign policy because this is not what the video is about.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^Yogi:
What about the history of Islam? All the scientists and developments that came from it?
What's the video's author suggesting that we eliminate a religion because it's not producing enough science?
I upvoted so that people can see this video...and hopefully take away from it that it doesn't matter if you're smart or if you're stupid...you can still be really dumb and prejudiced.


He is basically saying islam is detrimental to science and progress. thats a bit like saying "Smoking cigarrettes is bad for your health" it doesn't mean cigarettes kills everybody who smokes, it doesn't mean we should start executing people for smoking, it doesn't mean we should bomb cigarette-factories or wipe tobacco off the face of the earth. It simply means the statistics are not on the cigarettes side, and its not on islams side either. At the same time, we know that cigarettes are full of tar in nicotine, so its no wonder its bad for you. Islam, on its side, is a religion with its base in the Quran and Hadith. A reading of these texts will give you an idea of what its all about. Its a religion intrinsically hostile to the outside world including other religions or new ideas. Over and over, it demands total submission to the "one true god" and over and over it emphasizes the infallibility of islam, and the dangers of doubting it. It all but reads as a recipe for the halting of all progress, and heck, why not indeed, after all, Islam touts itself as being the final say from the old man himself. Why would there be any more questions left to ask or answer? That this mentality is reflected in the statistics of countries under Islamic rule/Islamic majority is certainly no surprise to me.
If you are of the opinion that saying stuff like that out makes you prejudiced, then thats your take. I think its a serious problem, and that talking about it openly would be better than to pretend the problem doesn't exist.

I think given a bit of time I could reach the same correlation with countries the US has attacked and nearly destroyed or has effected extremely negatively. I could prove up to at least the video posters standards that the US military does more for stifling science and general well being of other countries populations than anything else on earth. So to me this is an incredibly simplistic look and conclusion to come to when you're talking about humans and their development throughout history.
Hell I could come to the conclusion that the Chinese were useless inventors because they couldn't come up with Glass. Which means they failed at chemistry for so many centuries as well as transistors and the like, because they had china and they felt "Eh that's good enough."

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^Yogi:
What about the history of Islam? All the scientists and developments that came from it?
What's the video's author suggesting that we eliminate a religion because it's not producing enough science?
I upvoted so that people can see this video...and hopefully take away from it that it doesn't matter if you're smart or if you're stupid...you can still be really dumb and prejudiced.


He is basically saying islam is detrimental to science and progress. thats a bit like saying "Smoking cigarrettes is bad for your health" it doesn't mean cigarettes kills everybody who smokes, it doesn't mean we should start executing people for smoking, it doesn't mean we should bomb cigarette-factories or wipe tobacco off the face of the earth. It simply means the statistics are not on the cigarettes side, and its not on islams side either. At the same time, we know that cigarettes are full of tar in nicotine, so its no wonder its bad for you. Islam, on its side, is a religion with its base in the Quran and Hadith. A reading of these texts will give you an idea of what its all about. Its a religion intrinsically hostile to the outside world including other religions or new ideas. Over and over, it demands total submission to the "one true god" and over and over it emphasizes the infallibility of islam, and the dangers of doubting it. It all but reads as a recipe for the halting of all progress, and heck, why not indeed, after all, Islam touts itself as being the final say from the old man himself. Why would there be any more questions left to ask or answer? That this mentality is reflected in the statistics of countries under Islamic rule/Islamic majority is certainly no surprise to me.
If you are of the opinion that saying stuff like that out makes you prejudiced, then thats your take. I think its a serious problem, and that talking about it openly would be better than to pretend the problem doesn't exist.


I think given a bit of time I could reach the same correlation with countries the US has attacked and nearly destroyed or has effected extremely negatively. I could prove up to at least the video posters standards that the US military does more for stifling science and general well being of other countries populations than anything else on earth. So to me this is an incredibly simplistic look and conclusion to come to when you're talking about humans and their development throughout history.

Hell I could come to the conclusion that the Chinese were useless inventors because they couldn't come up with Glass. Which means they failed at chemistry for so many centuries as well as transistors and the like, because they had china and they felt "Eh that's good enough."

>> ^Yogi:

What about the history of Islam? All the scientists and developments that came from it?
What's the video's author suggesting that we eliminate a religion because it's not producing enough science?
I upvoted so that people can see this video...and hopefully take away from it that it doesn't matter if you're smart or if you're stupid...you can still be really dumb and prejudiced.



He is basically saying islam is detrimental to science and progress. thats a bit like saying "Smoking cigarrettes is bad for your health" it doesn't mean cigarettes kills everybody who smokes, it doesn't mean we should start executing people for smoking, it doesn't mean we should bomb cigarette-factories or wipe tobacco off the face of the earth. It simply means the statistics are not on the cigarettes side, and its not on Islams side either.

At the same time, we know that cigarettes are full of tar in nicotine, so its no wonder its bad for you.

Islam, on its side, is a religion with its base in the Quran and Hadith. A reading of these texts will give you an idea of what its all about. Its a religion intrinsically hostile to the outside world including other religions or new ideas. Over and over, it demands total submission to the "one true god" and over and over it emphasizes the infallibility of islam, and the dangers of doubting it. It all but reads as a recipe for the halting of all progress, and heck, why not indeed, after all, Islam touts itself as being the final say from the old man himself. Why would there be any more questions left to ask or answer? That this mentality is reflected in the statistics of countries under Islamic rule/Islamic majority is certainly no surprise to me.

If you are of the opinion that saying stuff like that out loud makes you prejudiced, then thats your take. I think its a serious problem, and that talking about it openly would be better than to pretend the problem doesn't exist.

He's on Drugs? Alcohol? Wine? Cocaine? Beer? Weed? xstacy? Taquila? Chocolate? Shrooms? DMT? Cognac? GHB? Caffeine? Goa? Techno? Nicotine? (NO ONE should be on Meth! Heroin! Pain pills! Sugar!)

If you were to break drugs down into simple categories, alcohol and cannabis are in the same place: the mildest right after caffeine and nicotine. All other drugs do not fit in this category.

If we live in a world where it's OK for alcohol to be legal, marijuana should be as well.

1. All this video is is an advertisement for the video "Nicotine Bees", it doesn't answer anything.

2. Every time someone says "a fifth grader could figure it out" I cringe. People only seem to say that when scientists the world over can't figure something out or when scientists are saying something different. These people tend to appeal to things like common sense, widespread ignorance or common misunderstandings. These people are usually out to lunch. Eg. the 9/11 Conspiracy people, the Chemtrail people, etc.

I'm not saying these people are out to lunch, but I'll hold my upvote until I've seen the real video.

This is also *dark in how much this kid is screwed by becoming a junior nicotine addict/ soon to be cancer patient, thanks to his jackass shit-for-brains family. Sad.