>> ^charliem:

Wait....the voice over guy states that cannabis has negative health side effects....but doesnt say what they are..??


My thoughts exactly. Maybe he's talking about the negative aspects of inhaling a burnt substance? That is easily bypassed. The only other negative side affect I know of is the altered mental state, which is only a negative if you don't want it. Maybe also "the munchies".

O.K., so that was funny. Do I ever use mary ju wanna? NEVER!!!! (O.K., maybe once a little bit, but I DID NOT INHALE!!!

I've never had pot, or any other illegal drug for that matter. I have never smoked or chewed tobacco, and I actually didn't drink alcohol until I turned 21, and only very rarely since then.

I don't really have any interest in it. I *hate* cigarette smoke, so the primary method of consumption (smoking) is repellant to me. With regards to alcohol, a light buzz is a somewhat good sensation for me but I strongly dislike the feeling of being drunk. I don't mean being hung over, I mean that when I am drunk I can tell that my brain isn't operating at peak efficiency and it just bothers me. That minor positive feeling I get with having 1-2 drinks honestly doesn't justify the cost of alcohol vs other beverages, and that is before the risk of drinking too much and the discomfort of being drunk.

I don't mean to push any of that on anyone -- I know and am friends with a lot of people who like getting drunk, quite a few that like to smoke, and some that smoke pot. I just mention it to present my perspective.

The thing that bothers me about most discussion about pot is that you only hear from the two opposite extremes. You've got your narc ATF-types that tell you that pot is highly addictive, it takes otherwise productive people and makes they lazy and apathetic, it is a surefire gateway to stronger drugs, it ruins lives, etc. etc. Then you've got the High Times-types that tell you that it cures every affliction known to mankind, it has no negative effects whatsoever, and that we might as well grind it up and put it in the water supply or something.

Having had no direct personal experience with it, my best guess is that pot impairs your judgement and mental faculties to a degree roughly equivalent to alcohol, possibly less so. Smoking it probably has negative health consequences roughly similar to smoking tobacco, but probably a little bit less bad -- for one thing, there are probably many more people who smoke a pack or two of cigarettes per day than people who smoke an equivalent number of joints. Less inhaled smoke probably means less detriment to health. In terms of addictiveness, it appears to me that pot is far less addictive than either alcohol OR tobacco.

Combine all that stuff together, and I don't understand why alcohol and tobacco are legal while pot isn't. Prohibition was a disaster, and the war on drugs (particularly pot) seems to be a failure to learn from that. That being said, if a high school student brings alcohol or tobacco to school and gets caught with them, they will probably be confiscated and given some punishment. Contrary to what Rogan says, I have heard of undercover/sting operations to bust underage drinking, particularly in order to punish adults to distribute alcohol to minors. All that is fine with me, probably a good thing.

In this clip, I didn't think that Dr. Drew's statements were all that extreme towards the ATF extreme side -- at least, not really any more than Rogan's were towards the High Times side. Still, upvote for presenting his viewpoint honestly and directly. I think that we need more discussion about this, with the likely result being that we get some real information that lands somewhere in the middle.

Disease rates

"During the past two decades, an explosive growth in both the prevalence and types of sexually transmitted diseases has occurred. Up to 55 percent of homosexual men with anorectal complaints have gonorrhea; 80 percent of the patients with syphilis are homosexuals. Chlamydia is found in 15 percent of asymptomatic homosexual men, and up to one third of homosexuals have active anorectal herpes simplex virus"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=2242700&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_Resul
tsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Higher rates of AIDS - 63 percent of new cases

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a2.htm


Drug use

Among homosexual men, ages 18 to 25: 79.2 percent have used marijuana; 75 percent have used psychotherapeutics for nonmedical reasons; 65.2 percent have used stimulants such as dexedrine and benzedrine; 62.5 percent have used inhalants such as amyl or butyl nitrate; and 50.2 percent have used hallucinogens such as LSD. Rates among lesbians: marijuana, 82 percent; psychotherapeutics, 58.8 percent; stimulants, 52.9 percent; inhalants, 41.2 percent; and hallucinogens, 41.2 percent. Comparing current usage to national usage, homosexuals were found to use drugs with greater frequency: "Among adults aged 18-25, 16.5 percent of men and 9.1 percent of women have used marijuana in the past month, compared with 37.5 per-cent of gay men and 23.5 percent of lesbians."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615476/

20 times higher rate of meth use (quoted from LA Times article)

http://www.narth.com/docs/methuse.html

Domestic violence

"Rates of battering victimization among urban MSM are substantially higher than among heterosexual men and possibly heterosexual women. Public health efforts directed toward addressing intimate partner battering among these men are needed."

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.92.12.1964

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r130ql0471892435/

Depression, suicide, mental health

LGB people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse, and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18706118

Findings support recent evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of mental health problems, with these associations being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10530626

Life expectancy of homosexuals

"In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871"

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract

Statistics on Amsterdam

According to a study in the Netherlands where homosexuality has been accepted and mainstreamed for years, homosexual behavior significantly increases the likelihood of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders, negating the mindset that society’s lack of tolerance of homosexual behavior and lifestyle produces these psychoses Youth are four times as likely to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and more than six times as likely to have attempted suicide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11146762

That covers all of my claims. I think you'll find all of the evidence I have provided is from unbiased sources. This refutes the claim that homosexuality does not harm anyone. It clearly harms the individual, the community and society at large.

Here are some more statistics that I don't have direct links to. .

An Amsterdam study found that the average homosexual relationship lasts only 18 months and that "men in homosexual relationships, on average, have eight partners a year outside those relationships." By comparison, more than two-thirds of heterosexual marriages in America last longer than ten years. Maria Xiridou et al.,

"The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,"
AIDS 17, 7 (2003): 1029-1038.

Ricky Behaviors:

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.

"Some With HIV Aren't Disclosing Before Sex; UCSF Researcher's 1,397-person Study Presented During aids Conference," The San Francisco Examiner (July 15, 2000)"

A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners

Gay and Bi Men Less Likely to Disclose They Have HIV," GayHealth News (July 18, 2000).

Promiscuity

A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see alsoBell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981)

Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.

Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.

A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.[11]

M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991),

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 3.

>> ^curiousity:

1) throw giant cloud of coffee creamer in air
2) light lighter in cloud, or have flame under it, etc.

best outdoors for sure

That looks cool though I may have to get a box of spore-pops.

OMG I just inhaled my spore pop! Is that bad!?

>> ^MadSentinel:

And exactly who is supposed to fill the enormous galoshes left by J K Simmons as J Jonah Jameson? Probably a very hard-working, well-intentioned actor with no shortage of talent, but I feel for him, whoever he may be, without even having seen his face or heard his voice. Clearly the studio saw fit not to include him in this trailer.

Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah! Hold on a second there! J K Simmons is not in this movie?

Screw that, I'm out.

I'll be over watching Christian Bale try to find his asthma inhaler...

>> ^quantumushroom:

To me, (freedom) means I'm free to do whatever I want so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same.
The liberal definition of freedom is you're free to do whatever you want so long as it offends no one.
THAT AIN'T FREEDOM.
Freedom means there are choices, including choices that are offensive and often dangerous.
If we still had freedom, a business owner could decide whether s/he allows smoking on the premises, not the State. Freedom means a business owner decides whether to allow smoking in the establishment. Free citizens decide if they'd rather go there and risk inhaling "deadly" secondhand smoke or go up the street to the guy who has a smoke-free place. The free market would determine which type of business wins out. There might be a market for both. We'll never know since we no longer have the freedom to associate with smokers indoors anywhere but private homes (which the nanny-staters are going after next).
But back to the original post: liberals only approve of who they deem bigots being kicked out of restaurants. They couldn't care less about freedom.

Why are you giving your perception of a liberal's idea of freedom when that clearly has nothing to do with the sentence of mine that you quoted? wtf?

As you say, though, back to the point you were ultimately making - that kicking anyone out of your restaurant is ok, but that the politically correct think it's only ok to kick out people they deem bigots. Kicking someone out of a restaurant isn't in itself an unethical act. It is only unethical if the reason for doing so is unethical. Apparently you would not agree that kicking a person out of your restaurant as part of a larger culture of violent discrimination against an entire population is unethical. Would you say that accurately describes your position?

On January 29, 2012 a man suffered major injuries and remains hospitalized while playing with firecrackers with his son and nephew. The accident occurred in Hunan province of China when Mr. Cai dropped a small firecracker into one of the holes of the sewer cover, which exploded an accumulation of gases. The force of the explosion was such that the sewer lid, weighing 20 kilos, was thrown a height of three stories. Fortunately, both children were at a sufficient distance and suffered no injury but Mr. Cai suffered facial burns and damage to the respiratory system by inhaling the flame produced by the explosion.

@aurens, One of the main techniques Ron Paul uses to manipulate people like you is by telling you that his definition of liberty is the ONLY definition, and that his interpretation of the constitution is the ONLY interpretation. By doing this, he leads you to believe that you are heroically fighting for liberty and the constitution, when in reality you are actually fighting for a very partisan and fringy set of far right political beliefs.

I find this fundamentally dishonest, whether you are aware you are doing it or not. I was mocking you, yes, but don't assume humor can't be 'part of the conversation' too.

Without using delusional 'constitution liberty, blah blah blah' type rhetoric, tell me why federal civil rights protections should be ended. Become part of the conversation.

Important point---> The constitution is like the Bible; people can use it to justify just about anything they want it to. This is fine, but when you use the circular reasoning that 'my candidate's subjective interpretation of the constitution is the ONLY interpretation of the constitution, therefore I am right and you are wrong by default', people like me might mockingly call you out on your self deception.

And, @artician, don't give me that condescending and assumptive 'you might learn something' bullshit. I've studied and discussed Ron Paul and libertarianism intensively over the last few years. The more I learn, the less I like it, which probably explains why Paul's support is wider than it is deep. I doubt you have anything more to teach be, as I seem to know more about the movement than you do, but if you have a new talking point, feel free to recite it for me. Ron Paul is a joke. If you are interested in learning about your candidate, here are some study materials: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/of1yc/why_ron_paul_is_possibly_the_worst_presidential/

As far as 'racism' goes, how many excuses are Ron Paul supporters going to come up with before they come to terms with the fact that this guy, if not racist himself, has certainly used racism for profit and political advancement?

The facts (off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more)
-RP ran a number of racist newsletter for many years.
-RP changed his position on the letters from 'the quotes were taken out of context' to 'I didn't write them.
-Many members of his staff have attested that he signed off on these letters.
-He has been photographed with many white supremacists.
-He has received campaign contributions from big names in white supremacist circles, which he kept.
-He has appeared on white supremacist talk radio shows.
-He speaks for the John Birch society.
-He was against the civil rights act.
-Anonymous found heavy organizational ties between RP and white supremacists.
-He uses the same states rights rhetoric as white supremacists.

How much smoke do you need to inhale before you pull the fire alarm?

Enough hero worship already. Try Occam's Razor instead.

To me, (freedom) means I'm free to do whatever I want so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same.

The liberal definition of freedom is you're free to do whatever you want so long as it offends no one.

THAT AIN'T FREEDOM.

Freedom means there are choices, including choices that are offensive and often dangerous.

If we still had freedom, a business owner could decide whether s/he allows smoking on the premises, not the State. Freedom means a business owner decides whether to allow smoking in the establishment. Free citizens decide if they'd rather go there and risk inhaling "deadly" secondhand smoke or go up the street to the guy who has a smoke-free place. The free market would determine which type of business wins out. There might be a market for both. We'll never know since we no longer have the freedom to associate with smokers indoors anywhere but private homes (which the nanny-staters are going after next).

But back to the original post: liberals only approve of who they deem bigots being kicked out of restaurants. They couldn't care less about freedom.


>> ^jonny:

>> ^quantumushroom:
if you own a business, you should have the right to decide who you will and will not serve. If we still had freedom, a business owner could decide whether s/he allows smoking on the premises, not the State.
We seem to have distinctly different definitions of 'freedom'. To me, it means I'm free to do whatever I want so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same. As far as I can tell, your definition of freedom is that you are free to do whatever you want and everyone else can fuck off.

I would have, except my lungs were in pain and I had to go home and rest.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^TheJehosephat:
Due to one absent-minded, japanese, 60-year old woman, I inhaled SO3. It wasn't pleasant...

Wow... I would have raged.

>> ^TheJehosephat:

Due to one absent-minded, japanese, 60-year old woman, I inhaled SO3. It wasn't pleasant...


Wow... I would have raged.

Due to one absent-minded, japanese, 60-year old woman, I inhaled SO3. It wasn't pleasant...

New Millenium Cyanide Christ

I'M A CARNAL, ORGANIC ANAGRAM. HUMAN FLESH INSTEAD OF WRITTEN LETTERS.
I REARRANGE MY PATHETIC TISSUE. I INCISE. I REPLACE. I'M REFORMED.
I ERADICATE THE FAKE PRE-PRESENT ME. ELEVATE ME TO A HIGHER HUMAN FORM.
THE CHARACTERS I AM, MADE INTO A WORD COMPLETE, THEN I'LL BE THE NEW NORM.

SELF INFLICTED FRACTURES. I REPLACE MY BONES WITH BARS;
ALUMINUM BLEEDING OXIDE; THE DRUG OF GODS INTO MY POUNDING VEINS

(A HUMAN PUZZLE FOR ALL TO SCORN. NO FACE. NO BACK. DIRECTIONLESS.
MY SCARRED EDITION I'LL DISPLAY; THE ORGANIC WORD FOR NOTHINGNESS)

MY RECEIVING EYES EXCHANGED WITH FUSES; BLINDNESS INDUCED TO PREVENT DESTRUCTION.
CERAMIC BLADES IMPLANTED PAST MY RIBS TO SAVE ME FROM THE DUES OF INHALATION.
I TEAR MY WORLDLY USELESS SKIN. STAPLES TO PIN IT OVER MY EARS.
NON-RECEPTIVE OF UNGODLY SOUNDS - I DISABLE THE AUDIO-GENERATORS OF FEAR.

HEXAGONAL BOLTS TO FILL MY MOUTH, SHARPENED TO DEPLETE THE CREATOR OF ALL VIOLENCE;
WITHOUT SPEECH THERE WILL BE NO DECEIT

(MY FEET I CRUSH. THE FLESH I CUT AWAY, SO AS TO NOT PRODUCE THE SOUND OF THEIR PRESENCE ON ROTTEN GROUND)

BAPTIZED IN VITRIOLIC ACID. A FINAL TOUCH. A SMOOTHING OF FEATURES.
COMPLETION OF THE GREATEST ART; TO CAST THE GODLY CREATURES.
HUMANS, ONCE ASTRAY; MADE DIVINE. STRIPPED OF CONGENITAL FLAWS.
WE'RE INCANDESCENT REVELATIONS IN A WORLD OF DARKENED FORMS.

(CONFIDE IN MY NEW AGE DOGMA. SWALLOW THE INDOCTRINATION. YOU'LL COME TO LOVE IT HERE,
THE SUICIDAL ATMOSPHERE. LET ME INTO YOUR COMMON MIND. I'LL PLANT MY THOUGHTS INTO ITS SOIL.
WALK AMONG US SELF-MADE GODS, DEIFIED THROUGH THE PAINS OF SELF TORTURE)

DISCIPLES, COME JOIN WITH ME TO SAVE A FAILED HUMANITY. FOLLOW THE GOD OF CYANIDE INTO THE NEW ETERNITY.
BEHOLD; A SACRIFICIAL RASE A CLEANSING WORSHIPPING OF PAIN.
THE NEW MILLENIUM CHRIST HERE TO REDEEM ALL FROM LIES

(I'VE COME TO SAVE YOU ALL. I'VE COME TO LIGHT YOUR WAY)

>> ^carneval:

>> ^Oxen_Morale:
OK so why is it very dangerous?

If it's heavier than air and you inhale a lot of it, you have to do a lot work to displace it; if you don't know that fact, you could suffocate. If you do know that and account for it it's not as unsafe.


Also, it displaces oxygen. If a canister of SF6 is leaking, and you don't know it, it could displace enough O2 in the room that you could pass out and die.