People line up to buy pot in Co.
- Thread starter grampi
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Number21
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I did, he's grown up and married now, he turned out good too.
I have a big problem with people associating "good" and "bad" with marijuana use. Marijuana does not make a person bad.
Good in my sentence means just that, it had nothing to do with how I feel about pot or people who use it. How about I used the word fine instead? Our method of bringing him up was just fine too.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I did, he's grown up and married now, he turned out good too.
I have a big problem with people associating "good" and "bad" with marijuana use. Marijuana does not make a person bad.
Good in my sentence means just that, it had nothing to do with how I feel about pot or people who use it. How about I used the word fine instead? Our method of bringing him up was just fine too.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Also, people define "loser" differently.
I'll make my definition of loser brief. Lets just call him an acquaintance, since I can't call him a friend. Married with three children, loses $180K/year job, gets a divorce, and loses his house because he likes to get high. He got fired, his wife had enough of his [censored] and filed for a divorce. To me that's a loser. He's working again for $50K/year last I heard, I'm not sure if he gave the weed up though. I have other definitions, but that one should some up what I consider a loser.
I sure HOPE you don't call him a friend; as sitting by (being a winner, I presume) while this person made such terrible decisions about his life would make you no friend at all. It sounds like this person needed some help from a friend or loved one and got none; and now there is a broken family out there being broken while we talk about "losers" on the internet.
I do not understand what this has to do with marijuana: Did this person use legal marijuana or did it being legal or illegal serve *absolutely no purpose* except to marginalize this person as a criminal, in addition to being someone in desperate need of help? Perhaps instead of spending zillions of dollars to maintain a police state and a failed "war on drugs", we should steer those resources towards helping those who need help because they use food, gambling, deceit, drugs, alcohol, money and infinite other things to ruin their own lives and the lives of those around them. Making laws prohibiting the methods by which people destroy themselves simply leaves a nation full of criminals destroying themselves. How's that working out?
This reminds me of a conversation I had with my neighbour, whose son has a problem with crack. My neighbour, out of his frustration and pain at seeing his son do this to himself, wanted to kill the crack dealer. But the harder, but more correct view, held that if his son is destroying himself and his crack dealer was murdered, all that would be left is a son who wants to destroy himself. First, the problem does not get solved, or even addressed at all! Secondly, he'll simply find another crack dealer. Addressing the real source of our problems is a long and painful affair, so I guess it is natural for us to simply want to write some laws and consider the issue over and done with, comfortably separated from the "losers".
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Also, people define "loser" differently.
I'll make my definition of loser brief. Lets just call him an acquaintance, since I can't call him a friend. Married with three children, loses $180K/year job, gets a divorce, and loses his house because he likes to get high. He got fired, his wife had enough of his [censored] and filed for a divorce. To me that's a loser. He's working again for $50K/year last I heard, I'm not sure if he gave the weed up though. I have other definitions, but that one should some up what I consider a loser.
I sure HOPE you don't call him a friend; as sitting by (being a winner, I presume) while this person made such terrible decisions about his life would make you no friend at all. It sounds like this person needed some help from a friend or loved one and got none; and now there is a broken family out there being broken while we talk about "losers" on the internet.
I do not understand what this has to do with marijuana: Did this person use legal marijuana or did it being legal or illegal serve *absolutely no purpose* except to marginalize this person as a criminal, in addition to being someone in desperate need of help? Perhaps instead of spending zillions of dollars to maintain a police state and a failed "war on drugs", we should steer those resources towards helping those who need help because they use food, gambling, deceit, drugs, alcohol, money and infinite other things to ruin their own lives and the lives of those around them. Making laws prohibiting the methods by which people destroy themselves simply leaves a nation full of criminals destroying themselves. How's that working out?
This reminds me of a conversation I had with my neighbour, whose son has a problem with crack. My neighbour, out of his frustration and pain at seeing his son do this to himself, wanted to kill the crack dealer. But the harder, but more correct view, held that if his son is destroying himself and his crack dealer was murdered, all that would be left is a son who wants to destroy himself. First, the problem does not get solved, or even addressed at all! Secondly, he'll simply find another crack dealer. Addressing the real source of our problems is a long and painful affair, so I guess it is natural for us to simply want to write some laws and consider the issue over and done with, comfortably separated from the "losers".
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
It's easy enough to see who smokes pot and who doesn't.
I read the silliest things on the internet, and they never cease to amaze me. If demarpaint only knew...
I'll bite: How might one tell who smokes pot and who doesn't?
It's easy enough to see who smokes pot and who doesn't.
I read the silliest things on the internet, and they never cease to amaze me. If demarpaint only knew...
I'll bite: How might one tell who smokes pot and who doesn't?
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
It's easy enough to see who smokes pot and who doesn't.
I read the silliest things on the internet, and they never cease to amaze me. If demarpaint only knew...
I'll bite: How might one tell who smokes pot and who doesn't?
I read a lot of silly things too, like pot is harmless, and safe to smoke. I can tell you Trav doesn't, and I don't. Where you able to figure that out from reading the thread?
My acquaintance smoked to get high and deal with "problems", those problems escalated and turned his life into a real mess. He thought his recreational smoking wasn't the problem, his boss and wife thought differently. Pot was illegal everywhere at the time. Would you call him a winner, or a success story? BTW he was married twice before I forgot to mention that. He was making fantastic money IMO, not anymore. For the record he was never a friend.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
It's easy enough to see who smokes pot and who doesn't.
I read the silliest things on the internet, and they never cease to amaze me. If demarpaint only knew...
I'll bite: How might one tell who smokes pot and who doesn't?
I read a lot of silly things too, like pot is harmless, and safe to smoke. I can tell you Trav doesn't, and I don't. Where you able to figure that out from reading the thread?
My acquaintance smoked to get high and deal with "problems", those problems escalated and turned his life into a real mess. He thought his recreational smoking wasn't the problem, his boss and wife thought differently. Pot was illegal everywhere at the time. Would you call him a winner, or a success story? BTW he was married twice before I forgot to mention that. He was making fantastic money IMO, not anymore. For the record he was never a friend.
There is some underlying science to support this.
The human brain is very complex and isn't completely developed until age 25. The use of any mind altering substance, drugs or alcohol affects that development.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: Number21
Originally Posted By: Trav
Some sort of complex going on there, are we supposed to be impressed? Most successful people keep a very low profile indeed.
I could care less if you created 2 or 200 jobs or how much you make or don't, drugs are a scourge on society and advocating them in any way to kids is just plain wrong.
So what is the point you are trying to make here? First it's about the children, and then marijuana is filthy...and now you just want to insult me. You're trying to say that I'm somehow a bad person for using marijuana and you are entirely wrong and completely out of line. Let's stick to the facts about marijuana here please...
I don't and never have advocated marijuana for children. Don't put stupid words in my mouth. I don't lie to children and tell them marijuana is the devil, because modern science has proven that it is not.
Your words not mine..
Quote:
My parents taught me there is nothing wrong with responsible use of marijuana among adults. Just like alcohol. That is exactly what I will teach my kids.
And no I am not out of line, IMO kids should be directed away from drugs at all cost and that includes drugs like THC.
Drugs are filth, they pollute and damage peoples mind.
The human brain is very complex and isn't completely developed until age 25. The use of any mind altering substance, drugs or alcohol affects that development.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: Number21
Originally Posted By: Trav
Some sort of complex going on there, are we supposed to be impressed? Most successful people keep a very low profile indeed.
I could care less if you created 2 or 200 jobs or how much you make or don't, drugs are a scourge on society and advocating them in any way to kids is just plain wrong.
So what is the point you are trying to make here? First it's about the children, and then marijuana is filthy...and now you just want to insult me. You're trying to say that I'm somehow a bad person for using marijuana and you are entirely wrong and completely out of line. Let's stick to the facts about marijuana here please...
I don't and never have advocated marijuana for children. Don't put stupid words in my mouth. I don't lie to children and tell them marijuana is the devil, because modern science has proven that it is not.
Your words not mine..
Quote:
My parents taught me there is nothing wrong with responsible use of marijuana among adults. Just like alcohol. That is exactly what I will teach my kids.
And no I am not out of line, IMO kids should be directed away from drugs at all cost and that includes drugs like THC.
Drugs are filth, they pollute and damage peoples mind.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
There is some underlying science to support this.
The human brain is very complex and isn't completely developed until age 25. The use of any mind altering substance, drugs or alcohol affects that development.
How so? According to some of the posts in this thread its harmless. LOL
There is some underlying science to support this.
The human brain is very complex and isn't completely developed until age 25. The use of any mind altering substance, drugs or alcohol affects that development.
How so? According to some of the posts in this thread its harmless. LOL
Originally Posted By: Turk
This thread is High.
High post count, that is.
It might be time for a mercy lock.
This thread is High.
High post count, that is.
It might be time for a mercy lock.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
How so? According to some of the posts in this thread its harmless. LOL
And according to some other posts in this same thread it is exactly the opposite. I guess it's a good thing that members of a motor oil forum don't make public policy.
I read this today, though, from http://sciencenordic.com/cannabis-can-kill-cancer-cells-and-curb-ms :
Quote:
"We are generally advised against self-medicating with cannabis. However, research shows that cannabis can actually relieve pains and nausea, fight cramps and even kill cancer cells."
... And this was from research *professionals*, not anonymous message forums dorks with varying, but always incompletely-informed opinions. This and most other medical research, of course, carries no sociological implication; that being well beyond the scope of said research. Sociological research seems to clear marijuana of any indictments of evil, too, though. In that regard, it seems like people destroy people, not drugs.
Like it or not, the public is waking up to the fact that "if it requires a police state to enforce your laws, your laws are wrong" and are beginning to expunge some of the sillier ones, at least at a state level for now.
How so? According to some of the posts in this thread its harmless. LOL
And according to some other posts in this same thread it is exactly the opposite. I guess it's a good thing that members of a motor oil forum don't make public policy.
I read this today, though, from http://sciencenordic.com/cannabis-can-kill-cancer-cells-and-curb-ms :
Quote:
"We are generally advised against self-medicating with cannabis. However, research shows that cannabis can actually relieve pains and nausea, fight cramps and even kill cancer cells."
... And this was from research *professionals*, not anonymous message forums dorks with varying, but always incompletely-informed opinions. This and most other medical research, of course, carries no sociological implication; that being well beyond the scope of said research. Sociological research seems to clear marijuana of any indictments of evil, too, though. In that regard, it seems like people destroy people, not drugs.
Like it or not, the public is waking up to the fact that "if it requires a police state to enforce your laws, your laws are wrong" and are beginning to expunge some of the sillier ones, at least at a state level for now.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
How so? According to some of the posts in this thread its harmless. LOL
And according to some other posts in this same thread it is exactly the opposite. I guess it's a good thing that members of a motor oil forum don't make public policy.
I read this today, though, from http://sciencenordic.com/cannabis-can-kill-cancer-cells-and-curb-ms :
"We are generally advised against self-medicating with cannabis. However, research shows that cannabis can actually relieve pains and nausea, fight cramps and even kill cancer cells."
Like it or not, the public is waking up to the fact that "if it requires a police state to enforce your laws, your laws are wrong" and are beginning to expunge some of the sillier ones, at least at a state level for now.
Handpicking? I do that too, and found articles stating it's harmful. If you don't have pains, nausea, cramps, or cancer why smoke it? Pleasure? No problem, as long as people stay off the roads when they're high.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
How so? According to some of the posts in this thread its harmless. LOL
And according to some other posts in this same thread it is exactly the opposite. I guess it's a good thing that members of a motor oil forum don't make public policy.
I read this today, though, from http://sciencenordic.com/cannabis-can-kill-cancer-cells-and-curb-ms :
"We are generally advised against self-medicating with cannabis. However, research shows that cannabis can actually relieve pains and nausea, fight cramps and even kill cancer cells."
Like it or not, the public is waking up to the fact that "if it requires a police state to enforce your laws, your laws are wrong" and are beginning to expunge some of the sillier ones, at least at a state level for now.
Handpicking? I do that too, and found articles stating it's harmful. If you don't have pains, nausea, cramps, or cancer why smoke it? Pleasure? No problem, as long as people stay off the roads when they're high.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Like it or not, the public is waking up to the fact that "if it requires a police state to enforce your laws, your laws are wrong" and are beginning to expunge some of the sillier ones, at least at a state level for now.
Oh really?
So when the national guard was deployed to support the enforcement of the laws the integrated the schools, according to your statement, it was a bad law.
I think some are speaking out of both sides of their mouths here. They say pot other substances are a grey area, and it's not so black and white. Yet many of the same then condemn laws against it and law enforcement, using the very same black and white thinking previously said was wrong.
Like it or not, the public is waking up to the fact that "if it requires a police state to enforce your laws, your laws are wrong" and are beginning to expunge some of the sillier ones, at least at a state level for now.
Oh really?
So when the national guard was deployed to support the enforcement of the laws the integrated the schools, according to your statement, it was a bad law.
I think some are speaking out of both sides of their mouths here. They say pot other substances are a grey area, and it's not so black and white. Yet many of the same then condemn laws against it and law enforcement, using the very same black and white thinking previously said was wrong.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
No problem, as long as people stay off the roads when they're high.
Add "or anything else that may negatively impact the lives of others" right after "stay off the roads" and you can print that out in 144 point font and add my endorsement to the end of it!
Would any of the combatants in this thread disagree with that statement?
No problem, as long as people stay off the roads when they're high.
Add "or anything else that may negatively impact the lives of others" right after "stay off the roads" and you can print that out in 144 point font and add my endorsement to the end of it!
Would any of the combatants in this thread disagree with that statement?
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
No problem, as long as people stay off the roads when they're high.
Add "or anything else that may negatively impact the lives of others" right after "stay off the roads" and you can print that out in 144 point font and add my endorsement to the end of it!
Would any of the combatants in this thread disagree with that statement?
Hey You got it! No problem. As long as people stay off the roads when they're high, or anything else that may negatively impact the lives of others.
There might be some people who disagree claiming it has no impact on your ability to drive and no negative effects on coordination or judgement. So the possibility for another round of fighting is always possible.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
No problem, as long as people stay off the roads when they're high.
Add "or anything else that may negatively impact the lives of others" right after "stay off the roads" and you can print that out in 144 point font and add my endorsement to the end of it!
Would any of the combatants in this thread disagree with that statement?
Hey You got it! No problem. As long as people stay off the roads when they're high, or anything else that may negatively impact the lives of others.
There might be some people who disagree claiming it has no impact on your ability to drive and no negative effects on coordination or judgement. So the possibility for another round of fighting is always possible.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
There might be some people who disagree claiming it has no impact on your ability to drive and no negative effects on coordination or judgement.
These people have either never smoked pot or have smoked waaaaaaay too much. Either way, arguing with them is pointless unless your aim is to further entrench them into their position.
If it is any consolation to those who think that the decriminalization of something is somehow a nation or state saying "this is OK to do" I would point out that pretty much everywhere narcotics have been decriminalized crime has gone down; likely due to the fact that no criminal element is necessary to supply the market. Isn't it encouraging to know that if we do not CREATE markets for criminals that society will not patronize criminal enterprises?!
There might be some people who disagree claiming it has no impact on your ability to drive and no negative effects on coordination or judgement.
These people have either never smoked pot or have smoked waaaaaaay too much. Either way, arguing with them is pointless unless your aim is to further entrench them into their position.
If it is any consolation to those who think that the decriminalization of something is somehow a nation or state saying "this is OK to do" I would point out that pretty much everywhere narcotics have been decriminalized crime has gone down; likely due to the fact that no criminal element is necessary to supply the market. Isn't it encouraging to know that if we do not CREATE markets for criminals that society will not patronize criminal enterprises?!
It may be true that 'pretty much everywhere narcotics have been decriminalized crime has gone down...' But where I worked I saw a lot of people who had used heroin and meth. You want to legalize those too? Maybe be involved in the sale of those drugs to human beings? Not me. I will pass. I know what heroin and meth do to human beings. I have a conscious.
I live in Colorado, one of the states that legalized pot. I voted against legalizing it. According to what was reported on the news after pot was legalized in Colorado the amount of pot seizures at the border INCREASED. And pot is selling for huge profits in Colorado.
There are scientific studies of the affects of pot use on the ability of students to be successful in school, etc.
I will pass on the pot. It may be good for cancer patients but otherwise it is pretty much a waste of money. I will drink a little bit of wine and beer in moderation and not get drunk.
I live in Colorado, one of the states that legalized pot. I voted against legalizing it. According to what was reported on the news after pot was legalized in Colorado the amount of pot seizures at the border INCREASED. And pot is selling for huge profits in Colorado.
There are scientific studies of the affects of pot use on the ability of students to be successful in school, etc.
I will pass on the pot. It may be good for cancer patients but otherwise it is pretty much a waste of money. I will drink a little bit of wine and beer in moderation and not get drunk.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: grampi
Then you're going about it the wrong way...nothing makes a kid want to do something more than their parents telling them not to do it...
Please provide the data to back THAT sweeping statement up.
Me telling my kids that they shouldn't play Russian Roulette will make them want to play it more?
Or is that statement merely for drugs and sex?
Then you're going about it the wrong way...nothing makes a kid want to do something more than their parents telling them not to do it...
Please provide the data to back THAT sweeping statement up.
Me telling my kids that they shouldn't play Russian Roulette will make them want to play it more?
Or is that statement merely for drugs and sex?
Originally Posted By: Swarmlord
Originally Posted By: grampi
Then you're going about it the wrong way...nothing makes a kid want to do something more than their parents telling them not to do it...
Please provide the data to back THAT sweeping statement up.
Me telling my kids that they shouldn't play Russian Roulette will make them want to play it more?
Or is that statement merely for drugs and sex?
Sure, I'll back it up for you...go tell your kids not to smoke pot or drink alcohol, they'll be doing both the next day...
Originally Posted By: grampi
Then you're going about it the wrong way...nothing makes a kid want to do something more than their parents telling them not to do it...
Please provide the data to back THAT sweeping statement up.
Me telling my kids that they shouldn't play Russian Roulette will make them want to play it more?
Or is that statement merely for drugs and sex?
Sure, I'll back it up for you...go tell your kids not to smoke pot or drink alcohol, they'll be doing both the next day...
Originally Posted By: Mystic
It may be true that 'pretty much everywhere narcotics have been decriminalized crime has gone down...' But where I worked I saw a lot of people who had used heroin and meth. You want to legalize those too? Maybe be involved in the sale of those drugs to human beings? Not me. I will pass. I know what heroin and meth do to human beings. I have a conscious.
The conversation is not about heroin or other hard drugs which are dangerous. There is a massive chasm between "dangerous" and "not dangerous".
There was an interesting conversation on Reddit the other day. A poster asked "Pretend marijuana was always legal and alcohol was currently illegal. Make a case for the legalization of alcohol." Alcohol is so much more a poison to our society than weed ever was or will be.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
And pot is selling for huge profits in Colorado.
INDEED IT IS. Just as it was during all those years when it was NOT legal. Only now, the profits go to a public trust instead of criminals. Do you understand this? There is no more coercive FORCE turning people who are NOT harming anyone into criminals *and* there is now a bounty of revenue in the public coffers.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
There are scientific studies of the affects of pot use on the ability of students to be successful in school, etc.
Then PARENTS need to be good parents, and communities need to be good communities so that people of all ages can make good decisions about what drugs they use recreationally; from the **relatively** innocuous ones like marijuana, to the more destructive ones like alcohol.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
I will pass on the pot. It may be good for cancer patients but otherwise it is pretty much a waste of money. I will drink a little bit of wine and beer in moderation and not get drunk.
Good. That is YOUR decision... So your decision should be forced upon all others by government? That's a little Orwellian, no?
It may be true that 'pretty much everywhere narcotics have been decriminalized crime has gone down...' But where I worked I saw a lot of people who had used heroin and meth. You want to legalize those too? Maybe be involved in the sale of those drugs to human beings? Not me. I will pass. I know what heroin and meth do to human beings. I have a conscious.
The conversation is not about heroin or other hard drugs which are dangerous. There is a massive chasm between "dangerous" and "not dangerous".
There was an interesting conversation on Reddit the other day. A poster asked "Pretend marijuana was always legal and alcohol was currently illegal. Make a case for the legalization of alcohol." Alcohol is so much more a poison to our society than weed ever was or will be.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
And pot is selling for huge profits in Colorado.
INDEED IT IS. Just as it was during all those years when it was NOT legal. Only now, the profits go to a public trust instead of criminals. Do you understand this? There is no more coercive FORCE turning people who are NOT harming anyone into criminals *and* there is now a bounty of revenue in the public coffers.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
There are scientific studies of the affects of pot use on the ability of students to be successful in school, etc.
Then PARENTS need to be good parents, and communities need to be good communities so that people of all ages can make good decisions about what drugs they use recreationally; from the **relatively** innocuous ones like marijuana, to the more destructive ones like alcohol.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
I will pass on the pot. It may be good for cancer patients but otherwise it is pretty much a waste of money. I will drink a little bit of wine and beer in moderation and not get drunk.
Good. That is YOUR decision... So your decision should be forced upon all others by government? That's a little Orwellian, no?
Originally Posted By: Swarmlord
Please provide the data to back THAT sweeping statement up.
Sure, I'll wrastle up some data to support that statement. Give me some time to gather together EVERY PARENT AND EVERY TEENAGER THAT HAS EVER EXISTED.......
There is prescription heroin given out in Switzerland to addicts, and usage there has nosedived. Many (former!) addicts report there being no fun in going into a clinic and sitting in a small fluorescent-lit room to shoot up; and they're not going to choose to go underground when they can get safe, free heroin at the clinic. So they just gradually lost the emotional impetus to use heroin. Here is the first return of a Google search on the subject.
http://sciencenordic.com/heroin-clinics-improve-addicts-lives
The bottom line is that when you make something that people like to do a crime, you have just created a bunch of criminals; and that is not healthy or productive. Educating people improves a society and fixes social problem. Marginalizing people with laws that require police states to enforce simply does not.
Please provide the data to back THAT sweeping statement up.
Sure, I'll wrastle up some data to support that statement. Give me some time to gather together EVERY PARENT AND EVERY TEENAGER THAT HAS EVER EXISTED.......
There is prescription heroin given out in Switzerland to addicts, and usage there has nosedived. Many (former!) addicts report there being no fun in going into a clinic and sitting in a small fluorescent-lit room to shoot up; and they're not going to choose to go underground when they can get safe, free heroin at the clinic. So they just gradually lost the emotional impetus to use heroin. Here is the first return of a Google search on the subject.
http://sciencenordic.com/heroin-clinics-improve-addicts-lives
The bottom line is that when you make something that people like to do a crime, you have just created a bunch of criminals; and that is not healthy or productive. Educating people improves a society and fixes social problem. Marginalizing people with laws that require police states to enforce simply does not.
- Status
Similar threads
