NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally think that cannabis should be legalized in the UK. I watched a television program last year about the twenty most dangerous drugs and cannabis only came in at 18 after poppers and something else. It apparently only kills 1 person a year in the UK opposed to alcohol which kills something like 800,000.

Legalise, not legalize.

And you call yourself a British nationalist.

Upgrade it, vices are so much more fun when they're illegal.

What should the government do about Cannabis?

I vote no.

Legalise, not legalize.


-ize is the preferred spelling in both the US and the UK.

Your poll makes no sense.

Legalise, not legalize.

And you call yourself a British nationalist.

"legalize / verb (also -ise) (-zing or -sing)"

from the oxford dictionary

-ize is the preferred spelling in both the US and the UK.

It's still wrong.

I know there's a lot of evidence saying cannabis is relatively harmless compared to some stuff out there, but the fact remains: since I started it (and since I stopped it) I've been hearing vague voices in my head in times of stress.

On the legal front, though, I'm all for legalising it.

Your poll makes no sense.

I made the poll results for the thread question. And then forgot to put the question so just wrote a question which went with the answer I wrote.

I made the poll results for the thread question. And then forgot to put the question so just wrote a question which went with the answer I wrote.

But there's no question in your post either.

In the future, don't smoke cannabis before making a poll about cannabis. ;)

It's still wrong.

You can never admit to being wrong can you it’s in the English dictionary.

I know there's a lot of evidence saying cannabis is relatively harmless compared to some stuff out there, but the fact remains: since I started it (and since I stopped it) I've been hearing vague voices in my head in times of stress.

On the legal front, though, I'm all for legalising it.

Yeah, it fucked me up.

But there's no question in your post either.

In the future, don't smoke cannabis before making a poll about cannabis. ;)

Sorry, I thought I put 'should we' at the beginning of the thread title.

But there's no question in your post either.

In the future, don't smoke cannabis before making a poll about cannabis. ;)
He, actually was lean.
You can never admit to being wrong can you it’s in the English dictionary.
S's not Z's.

I personally think that cannabis should be legalized in the UK. I watched a television program last year about the twenty most dangerous drugs and cannabis only came in at 18 after poppers and something else. It apparently only kills 1 person a year in the UK opposed to alcohol which kills something like 800,000.

800,000 Alcohol related deaths in the UK? Per year?

Seems rather high to me, that's about 1.5% of the population... doesn't seem much but that's a large amount of people to disappear...

Correct me if I am wrong.

Yeah, it fucked me up.

weed sorted you life out mate before you smoked it you never used to be socially since then you been talking to more people and since you quit there have been no visible signs that it has done anything to you except once were you fainted, but you were ill then so don't blame the weed.

800,000 Alcohol related deaths in the UK? Per year?

Seems rather high to me, that's about 1.5% of the population... doesn't seem much but that's a large amount of people to disappear...

Correct me if I am wrong.

It was probably more like 80,000 I was pretty stoned when I watched it.

weed sorted you life out mate before you smoked it you never used to be socially since then you been talking to more people and since you quit there have been no visible signs that it has done anything to you except once were you fainted, but you were ill then so don't blame the weed.

Fainting? That's what you called it? Fuck you.


I did socialise with normal people before I smoked it.

He, actually was lean.

S's not Z's.

The English dictionary. Puts '-ize' first.

Is 'z' an American letter that only Americans can use?

FYI 'zaturday' 'zonday' 'zomer' all Kentish words my friend.

Fainting? That's what you called it? Fuck you.


I did socialise with normal people before I smoked it.

Only Callum, Sam and Richard.

Weed got you into smoking normal cigarettes which has got you friends like Kieran, Ciaran, George and so on

The English dictionary. Puts '-ize' first.

Is 'z' an American letter that only Americans can use?

FYI 'zaturday' 'zonday' 'zomer' all Kentish words my friend.

Old Kentish.


And they ain't use like "ise".

Fainting?

thats what it was mate.

Only Callum, Sam and Richard.

Weed got you into smoking normal cigarettes which has got you friends like Kieran, Ciaran, George and so on

I smoked fags first.

At least the first three were intelligent, and not Neo Nazis.

thats what it was mate.

You're dumber than I thought.

Old Kentish.


And they ain't use like "ise".


your native tongue, 'ain't' is not an english word

'And they ain't use like "ise"'

what are you on about

S's not Z's.

15 year-old poster on the Internet vs. The Oxford dictionary on the subject of proper spelling! WHO WILL WIN?

Yeah, no contest, I'm afraid.

your native tongue, 'ain't' is not an english word

'And they ain't use like "ise"'

what are you on about

Ain't is a word, so's idiot.

Grammar mistake.

15 year-old poster on the Internet vs. The Oxford dictionary on the subject of proper spelling! WHO WILL WIN?

Yeah, no contest, I'm afraid.

Lol ROI is getting owned

15 year-old poster on the Internet vs. The Oxford dictionary on the subject of proper spelling! WHO WILL WIN?

Yeah, no contest, I'm afraid.

I win every time.

Lol ROI is getting owned

Not really.

your native tongue, 'ain't' is not an english word

'And they ain't use like "ise"'

what are you on about

Technically ain't is an English word, it is just not accepted by most due to its current usage which cannot be contracted from two modern words. Originally it came from 'amn't' which was the short version of am not but with like most language the originally spelling and meaning has changed.

This lesson was brought to you by Londim.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/realise

Maybe it's illegal because else the people can't spell anymore.

I win every time.
Are you on some sort of medication?
Not really.
Yeah, really.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/realise
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/orexxalize?view=uk

I smoked fags first.

At least the first three were intelligent, and not Neo Nazis.

Remember back to when I saw you and TB at the station before you had ever smoked either weed or tobacco and I came up suggesting as you said you were stressed to have a cigarette. TB turned to me and said you had just got stoned with him. So you started smoking weed and tobacco on the same day as the day before you told me you would not smoke cigarettes.

Are you on some sort of medication?
Not any more.

Yeah, really.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/orexxalize?view=uk

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/realise

Remember back to when I saw you and TB at the station before you had ever smoked either weed or tobacco and I came up suggesting as you said you were stressed to have a cigarette. TB turned to me and said you had just got stoned with him. So you started smoking weed and tobacco on the same day as the day before you told me you would not smoke cigarettes.

I think I know better than you.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/realise

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realize

50% of this thread is dealing about legalize or legalise.

I think I need some spliff

I think I know better than you.

What because you got so stoned you can’t remember the day after either where I offered a cigarette to you and you said ' I only smoked weed once and I don’t want to keep smoking either weed or tobacco' not the exact words but close enough.

50% of this thread is dealing about legalize or legalise.

I think I need some spliff

Both are correct.

The joys of a language spoken by most of the world.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realize

We could do this all night, both are expectable, but realise is the original and the correct way.

What because you got so stoned you can’t remember the day after either where I offered a cigarette to you and you said ' I only smoked weed once and I don’t want to keep smoking either weed or tobacco' not the exact words but close enough.

Are you fucking serious? I know my life better than you. I smoked weeks before.

We could do this all night, both are expectable, but realise is the original and the correct way.

Realize is the correct way. But this is off topic. Let's end this.

Legalise, not legalize.

And you call yourself a British nationalist.

Indeed. :D

Anyway, yes, alcohol and nicotine are fairly more addictive than THC, and tobacco and alcohol kill a lot of people across Europe every year.
Not so many as pollution, though, I think I remember.

50% of this thread is dealing about legalize or legalise.

I think I need some spliff

I agree lets get to the point should weed be legalized or not?

Realize is the correct way. But this is off topic. Let's end this.

I realise this off topic, so lets leave it.

but the fact remains: since I started it (and since I stopped it) I've been hearing vague voices in my head in times of stress.

Maybe the problem with you is stress, not THC.
I heard voices in my head even before I ever smoked a joint.

I agree lets get to the point should weed be legalized or not?

No, it should not be legalised

I realise this off topic, so lets leave it.

I realise (that) this is off-topic, so let's leave it.

Grammar Nazis must begin with themselves, methinks.

Indeed. :D

The point is that the English dictionary says 'ize' not 'ise' so being a nationalist has nothing to do with whether I follow the English dictionary or ROI's way of spelling legalize

Spliff isn't that harmless (*blows*). If used in your teenager years, you have more chances to get schizophrenia later.

And there's the criminal aspect as well. They closed one of the biggest coffee shops in Terneuzen (The Netherlands) and in the cities around the criminality lowered with 50%.

Maybe the problem with you is stress, not THC.
I heard voices in my head even before I ever smoked a joint.

You still do?

No, it should not be legalised

Why?

Spliff isn't that harmless (*blows*). If used in your teenager years, you have more chances to get schizophrenia later.

And there's the criminal aspect as well. They closed one of the biggest coffee shops in Terneuzen (The Netherlands) and in the cities around the criminality lowered with 50%.

Source?

I realise (that) this is off-topic, so let's leave it.

Grammar Nazis must begin with themselves, methinks.
Damn Italians.
The point is that the English dictionary says 'ize' not 'ise' so being a nationalist has nothing to do with whether I follow the English dictionary or ROI's way of spelling legalize

We dropped it, leave it.

Why?

It's dangerous, it's not great anyway.

It's dangerous, it's not great anyway.
Alcohol is dangerous, and it's not that great anyway. Hell, driving for fun isn't that great, and it's VERY dangerous, let's ban that while we're at it. Driving is only allowed for certain government approved purposes now. In fact, those damn skateboards and bicycles are dangerous too, let's ban them too.:rolleyes:

It's dangerous, it's not great anyway.

It only kills 1 person a year in the UK whereas smoking and drinking which you both do kills a hell of a lot more so smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol should be illegal too?

Source?

It was in a local newspaper some time ago, but here's a link:

http://dstarz.wordpress.com/category/verdovende-middelen-gent/

Een lichtend voorbeeld voor de Belgen is Terneuzen, dat kort geleden een grote coffeeshop sloot. Sauwens: ,,Daarna liep in Zelzate (aan de andere kant van de grens – red.) het aantal inbraken met dertig tot vijftig procent terug.

I'll translate:

A shining example for the Belgians is Terneuzen, which recently closed a large coffeeshop. Sauwens: In Zelzate (on the other side of the border - ed) the number of burglaries dropped with thirty to fifty percent.

And here's a schizo link:

Two new research journal articles came out in the August,2006 issue of the "Canadian Journal of Psychiatry" on the issue of how cannabis (marijuana) use is linked to increased risk of schizophrenia - and what the public policy should be given what they describe as this now generally-accepted fact in psychiatry today.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/003851.html

Cheers!

You still do?

Not very often. Last time was more than 2 years ago, and I never smoked more than once a month. But I could use one within the next weeks.

It was in a local newspaper some time ago, but here's a link:

http://dstarz.wordpress.com/category/verdovende-middelen-gent/

Een lichtend voorbeeld voor de Belgen is Terneuzen, dat kort geleden een grote coffeeshop sloot. Sauwens: ,,Daarna liep in Zelzate (aan de andere kant van de grens – red.) het aantal inbraken met dertig tot vijftig procent terug.

I'll translate:

A shining example for the Belgians is Terneuzen, which recently closed a large coffeeshop. Sauwens: In Zelzate (on the other side of the border - ed) the number of burglaries dropped with thirty to fifty percent.

And here's a schizo link:

Two new research journal articles came out in the August,2006 issue of the "Canadian Journal of Psychiatry" on the issue of how cannabis (marijuana) use is linked to increased risk of schizophrenia - and what the public policy should be given what they describe as this now generally-accepted fact in psychiatry today.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/003851.html

Cheers!

First is a blog and not to be trusted. Second is a blog that links to itself, and one 404 as a source.

Alcohol is dangerous, and it's not that great anyway. Hell, driving for fun isn't that great, and it's VERY dangerous, let's ban that while we're at it. Driving is only allowed for certain government approved purposes now. In fact, those damn skateboards and bicycles are dangerous too, let's ban them too.:rolleyes:

Knives and clubs are even more dangerous, as they're the weapons of choice in most homicides in Europe, iirc. Let's eat and play golf with our bare hands only. And something must be done about hammers. Hammers around, ayeeee!!!! Think of the children!

;)

It only kills 1 person a year in the UK whereas smoking and drinking which you both do kills a hell of a lot more so smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol should be illegal too?

I can't trust your statistics, you think that 800,000 people die from drinking each year.

Sort out your grammar. Sentences start with capital letters. And your words are in the wrong order.

First is a blog and not to be trusted. Second is a blog that links to itself, and one 404 as a source.


RSNA: Brain Scans Suggest Marijuana-Schizophrenia Link

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/RSNA/2239

Knives and clubs are even more dangerous, as they're the weapons of choice in most homicides in Europe, iirc. Let's eat and play golf with our bare hands only. And something must be done about hammers. Hammers around, ayeeee!!!! Think of the children!

;)
Espicially hammers. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_55JL9Zxnc)
I can't trust your statistics, you think that 800,000 people die from drinking each year.

Sort out your grammar. Sentences start with capital letters. And your words are in the wrong order.
Come now, debate, not nitpick about spelling and grammar errors. And I think 800,000 is about it, if you include alcohol related accidents and alcohol related diseases.

RSNA: Brain Scans Suggest Marijuana-Schizophrenia Link

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/RSNA/2239

That finding emerged from a handful of small brain-imaging studies by Manzar Ashtari, Ph.D., of Zucker Hillside Hospital in Glen Oaks, N.Y. She identified a brain region affected by both schizophrenia and marijuana use that she said is still "under construction" during adolescence.
The problem seems to be adolescent marijuana use, and even that is a maybe.

It only kills 1 person a year in the UK, whereas smoking and drinking - which you both do - kill a hell of a lot more. Hence smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol should be illegal, too, shoulnd't it?

Grammar naziness (or fascistness in my case) should be dealt impartially.

3.Yes, it should, and I say that because
4.It's Me again, thy LORD, who likes to speak in quotes.
Damn. Here he goes again.

Espicially hammers. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_55JL9Zxnc)

Come now, debate, not nitpick about spelling and grammar errors. And I think 800,000 is about it, if you include alcohol related accidents and alcohol related diseases.

What? 0.8 million people?

What? 0.8 million people?

In the US alone, the number of deaths in '08 was 2,448,017. So I wouldn't doubt that the amount of heart disease, fatal crashes, and the like caused by alcohol, or advanced by it, could easily reach that in the Western World alone.

The problem seems to be adolescent marijuana use, and even that is a maybe.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/cannabis.marijuana.schizophrenia.html

or

Swedish research [1] using nearly the whole cohort of Swedish males (during national service) showed that there is a correlation between drug use in the teenage years and the later incidence of schizophrenia

http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/cannabis.html

or

Study: Heavy Marijuana Use Might Cause Schizophrenia in Some Teens

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-12/2005-12-01-voa74.cfm

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/cannabis.marijuana.schizophrenia.html

Many of these research studies indicate that the risk is higher when the drugs are used by people under the age of 21, a time when the human brain is developing rapidly and is particularly vulnerable.
Researchers in New Zealand found that those who used cannabis by the age of 15 were more than three times (300%) more likely to develop illnesses such as schizophrenia.
The increased risk applies to people who inherit variants of a gene named COMT and who smoked cannabis as teenagers. About a quarter of the population have this genetic make-up and up to 15 per cent of the group are likely to develop psychotic conditions if exposed to the drug early in life. Neither the drug nor the gene raises the risk of psychosis by itself.
Point...?

Point...?

Yeah hello?

Of course you know it all better than scientist who actually investigate those stuff. As usual.

Yeah hello?

Of course you know it all better than scientist who actually investigate those stuff. As usual.

I've quoted your own source. So drug use when young is harmful, that still fails to say that marijuana leads to schizophrenia, even when you have neither the gene nor used it when young.

Please, it would help if you read the source you link to before you post it.:)

I was taught that though both -ise and -ize ending are correct in English English, -ize is the spelling used almost exclusively by Americans. Personally I always use -ise.

I would say legalising cannabis would remove a source of income for criminals/terrorists.

Point...?

Click on the link of that piece and you'll get:

COMT comes in two forms, one of which is marginally more common in people with schizophrenia and is thought to be a risk factor for the disease.

The results were crystal clear.

The team found that in New Zealanders with two copies of the "normal" version of COMT, smoking cannabis had little effect on their mental health. In people with one normal and one "bad" form of the gene, smoking cannabis slightly increased their risk of psychosis.

But for people with two copies of the bad gene, cannabis spelled trouble: smoking the drug as a teenager increased their likelihood of developing psychosis by a factor of 10.

I was taught that though both -ise and -ize ending are correct in English English, -ize is the spelling used almost exclusively by Americans. Personally I always use -ise.

I would say legalising cannabis would remove a source of income for criminals/terrorists.

If it were taxable, it would be legal.

Click on the link of that piece and you'll get:

COMT comes in two forms, one of which is marginally more common in people with schizophrenia and is thought to be a risk factor for the disease.

The results were crystal clear.

The team found that in New Zealanders with two copies of the "normal" version of COMT, smoking cannabis had little effect on their mental health. In people with one normal and one "bad" form of the gene, smoking cannabis slightly increased their risk of psychosis.

But for people with two copies of the bad gene, cannabis spelled trouble: smoking the drug as a teenager increased their likelihood of developing psychosis by a factor of 10.
Indeed. So people with the wrong gene and/or smoke while young, while their brain is still developing, increases the chance of psychosis. It still disproves nothing I have said.:wink:

If it were taxable, it would be legal.

It is taxable. At least as much as any other 'Cash Crop', as some might say.

Indeed. So people with the wrong gene and/or smoke while young, while their brain is still developing, increases the chance of psychosis. It still disproves nothing I have said.:wink:

Whatever. There are countless studies conducted on this issue, they all point in the same direction.

Like I said, you know it all better than scientist who actual do research about this subject.

Amazing :)

Frequent cannabis use during adolescence and young adulthood raises the risk of psychotic symptoms later in life, research suggests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4052963.stm

If it were taxable, it would be legal.

It could be taxable if it were legalised as it would be sold like cigarettes in shops were tax could be added as with alcohol

The problem is the production. A country could legalise the use like here in the Netherlands, but no country will legalise the production.

It could be taxable if it were legalised as it would be sold like cigarettes in shops were tax could be added as with alcohol

That sentence makes no sense- in fact it's not even a sentence.

The problem is the production. A country could legalise the use like here in the Netherlands, but no country will legalise the production.

Stupid really the government could make money on it and spend it on things like the NHS

Stupid really the government could make money on it and spend it on things like the NHS

Is it? Well, maybe they should sell crack and cocaine as well. Huge profits assured.

That sentence makes no sense- in fact it's not even a sentence.

let me dumb it down for you

fags and booze are taxed
which if cannabis was sold like fags (which it should be) it would be taxed to.

Whatever. There are countless studies conducted on this issue, they all point in the same direction.

Like I said, you know it all better than scientist who actual do research about this subject.

Amazing :)

Frequent cannabis use during adolescence and young adulthood raises the risk of psychotic symptoms later in life, research suggests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4052963.stm

And as I said, nothing you've stated from the articles contradict me.:wink:

let me dumb it down for you

fags and booze are taxed
which if cannabis was sold like fags (which it should be) it would be taxed to.

No, I understood.

You're just an idiot.

No, I understood.

You're just an idiot.
Aww, isn't it cute when he flames someone for having a different opinion? No? I didn't think so either.

For those debating the schizophrenia angle, you might want to look at this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jul/28/drugs.drugsandalcohol

Is it? Well, maybe they should sell crack and cocaine as well. Huge profits assured.

I am only saying that weed should be legalised and taxed by the government not harder drugs like that.

And as I said, nothing you've stated from the articles contradict me.:wink:

Of course not. They just say all that using weed at a young age is a higher risk for getting schizophrenia later.

But dream on, I'll stay in the reality.

Aww, isn't it cute when he flames someone for having a different opinion? No? I didn't think so either.

It wasn't his opinion- it was the way it was written. My eyes are bleeding.

Of course not. They just say all that using weed at a young age is a higher risk for getting schizophrenia later.


And I've never disagreed with that. See? We're on the same page. :)

It wasn't his opinion- it was the way it was written. My eyes are bleeding.

No, no, it's his opinion. You said you understood, but still thought he was an idiot. Besides, flaming is never good form when debating.

I am only saying that weed should be legalised and taxed by the government not harder drugs like that.

I'm Dutch. In my country the use of weed is legalised.

I know rather a lot people that smoke that stuff. For most it's not a problem. But for some the damage is enormous.

They don't do anything but smoking. They don't work, they don't have a lot of friends. If I ask "how is life?" They'll answer with "Great man, I was stoned yesterday, wow!!!' They don't have a real life. It are in a way living vegetables.

Most of my friends do like alcohol or smoke cigarettes. Not one is in a kind of depression. Not one isn't working (or isn't searching for a job).

That doesn't mean that alcohol and nicotine are safe. But I guess you're not aware of the problems that arise when weed is legal as in my country.

No, no, it's his opinion. You said you understood, but still thought he was an idiot. Besides, flaming is never good form when debating.

I called him an idiot for poor his grammar.

If it were taxable, it would be legal.

It IS taxable - though homegrowing cannabis it's easier than homegrowing tobacco, so there would be a lot of elusion.

The problem, iirc, with legalising cannabis is a protocol signed by most UN countries about drugs. I cannot remember the details, but google is your friend.

I'm Dutch. In my country the use of weed is legalised.

I know rather a lot people that smoke that stuff. For most it's not a problem. But for some the damage is enormous.

They don't do anything but smoking. They don't work, they don't have a lot of friends. If I ask "how is life?" They'll answer with "Great man, I was stoned yesterday, wow!!!' They don't have a real life. It are in a way living vegetables.

Most of my friends do like alcohol or smoke cigarettes. Not one is in a kind of depression. Not one isn't working (or searching for a job).

That doesn't mean that alcohol and nicotine are safe. But I guess you're not aware of the problems that arise when weed is legal as in my country.
Mmm, I love unsupported anecdotes, where all of her drunk friends have jobs and is a great mood all the time, whereas her stoner friends are all a bunch of lazy, depressed bums.:wink:

Of course not. They just say all that using weed at a young age is a higher risk for getting schizophrenia later.

They've correlated frequent use in teen years with schizophrenia. But a correlation is not causation, and it is thoroughly plausible that people who develop schizophrenia are more likely to use psychoactive substances (including alcohol). And in fact plenty of people self-medicate with marijuana because of its calming effects.

But dream on, I'll stay in the reality.

Do you also support criminalizing alcohol? Because alcohol use was also correlated with schizophrenia.

I called him an idiot for poor his grammar.

It's still flaming, and I still don't buy that that's the only reason you do that. I have yet to see you call Greed and Death on that.

I know rather a lot people that smoke that stuff. For most it's not a problem. But for some the damage is enormous.

They don't do anything but smoking. They don't work, they don't have a lot of friends. If I ask "how is life?" They'll answer with "Great man, I was stoned yesterday, wow!!!' They don't have a real life. It are in a way living vegetables.

Hey, not very different from alcohol then.
A lot of people drink alcohol and live a pretty normal life. Some people, though, don't do anything but drinking cheap alcohol. They don't work, they don't have friends. If you ask "how is life?", they'll answer "baaaahhh.... will you buy me a round?".
We here call them homeless drunkards.

It IS taxable - though homegrowing cannabis it's easier than homegrowing tobacco, so there would be a lot of elusion.

The problem, iirc, with legalising cannabis is a protocol signed by most UN countries about drugs. I cannot remember the details, but google is your friend.
That's what I meant.
It's still flaming, and I still don't buy that that's the only reason you do that. I have yet to see you call Greed and Death on that.

I know him- he's an idiot.

(A lovely idiot)

Mmm, I love unsupported anecdotes, where all of her drunk friends have jobs and is a great mood all the time, whereas her stoner friends are all a bunch of lazy, depressed bums.:wink:

Is weed legal in your country?

Hey, not very different from alcohol then.
A lot of people drink alcohol and live a pretty normal life. Some people, though, don't do anything but drinking cheap alcohol. They don't work, they don't have friends. If you ask "how is life?", they'll answer "baaaahhh.... will you buy me a round?".
We here call them homeless drunkards.

These people are not homeless.

That's what I meant.


I know him- he's an idiot.
Despite having well-thought out opinions, many of which he backs up and supports far better than your opinions. But, because he neglects grammar on an internet forum, he becomes an idiot in your eyes. That's almost funny.
Is weed legal in your country?

It would be nice if it was, as its' illegal status is making gangs extremely profitable and the trafficking of the drug, even to the younger portions of our society all too common, but no, it is not.

These people are not homeless.

So, you have only one problem with his whole argument? Good, I'm glad to see that we agree.:)

Despite having well-thought out opinions, many of which he backs up and supports far better than your opinions. But, because he neglects grammar on an internet forum, he becomes an idiot in your eyes. That's almost funny.


How has he backed anything up better than me? He hasn't even used any sources.

How has he backed anything up better than me? He hasn't even used any sources.

Greed and Death? Since when does he not back up what he says?

Greed and Death? Since when does he not back up what he says?

Not him, Dingle.

Despite having well-thought out opinions, many of which he backs up and supports far better than your opinions. But, because he neglects grammar on an internet forum, he becomes an idiot in your eyes. That's almost funny.


It would be nice if it was, as its' illegal status is making gangs extremely profitable and the trafficking of the drug, even to the younger portions of our society all too common, but no, it is not.

Well in my country it is. Maybe, maybe I'm a little better informed than you on this issue, no?

If you think that there's no criminality related with the sales of weed in my country, then you know nothing.

The drug criminal scene in the Netherland is one of the biggest in Europe.

First of all, the production isn't legal, so a coffee shop has to buy it illegally.
Secondly, the profits are enormous and for the biggest part it's untaxed money. Most of these guys invest it in other illegal things. They sell other drugs as well. XTC, liquid XTC, heroine, cocaine, etc... Others are in the mood for pimping.

And there are the 'minor' criminal issues as well. Drugs runners that push people on the streets, public urinating, fights, etc...
And oh yes, it's great when a few weedheads are blowing near the playgrounds of children. All parents like this!

You could maybe fantasy how wonderful the legalisation of weed is, but if you live in such society you would maybe talk different.

Not him, Dingle.

You claimed Greed and Death, one of the better posters on here, was an idiot. I brought him up to prove that grammar isn't everything. So, you're calling Dingle an idiot because of his grammar, and yet, there are posters on here whose grammar is just as bad, and yet they back up and source their opinions far better than you.

Hairless Kitten, are you ignoring my post on purpose, or do you just prefer not to answer since your answer might incriminate your position? :)

You claimed Greed and Death, one of the better posters on here, was an idiot. I brought him up to prove that grammar isn't everything. So, you're calling Dingle an idiot because of his grammar, and yet, there are posters on here whose grammar is just as bad, and yet they back up and source their opinions far better than you.

When did I call G and D an idiot?

I've made like 3 links in this one thread. I back stuff up ( rarely). And when I do- I put capital letters at the start of sentences.

Hairless Kitten, are you ignoring my post on purpose, or do you just prefer not to answer since your answer might incriminate your position? :)

No my dear. I just miss it, I'll have a check. :)

Well in my country it is. Maybe, maybe I'm a little better informed than you on this issue, no?

If you think that there's no criminality related with the sales of weed in my country, then you know nothing.

The drug criminal scene in the Netherland is one of the biggest in Europe.

First of all, the production isn't legal, so a coffee shop has to buy it illegally.
Secondly, the profits are enormous and for the biggest part it's untaxed money. Most of these guys invest it in other illegal things. They sell other drugs as well. XTC, liquid XTC, heroine, cocaine, etc... Others are in the mood for pimping.

And there are the 'minor' criminal issues as well. Drugs runners that push people on the streets, public urinating, fights, etc...
And oh yes, it's great when a few weedheads are blowing near the playgrounds of children. All parents like this!

You could maybe fantasy how wonderful the legalisation of weed is, but if you life in such society you would maybe talk different.

But it sounds like a lot of those problems could be solved be legalizing the production of weed and removing the criminal aspect completely, and spending a bit more time on general public order offenses.

Well in my country it is. Maybe, maybe I'm a little better informed than you on this issue, no?


Ah, but perhaps I'm a bit better informed on this issue, seeing as I live in a country where huge profits are fueling gangs, who then go off and commit more crimes, with more dangerous implications because of the profits gained from illegal Marijuana trafficking, no?
If you think that there's no criminality related with the sales of weed in my country, then you know nothing.
I never said that legalization of marijuana would end ALL crime related to it. Hell, there's cigarette smuggling still! Related crime to a object of any kind will persist, always. However, legalization cuts down on it intensely.


The drug criminal scene in the Netherland is one of the biggest in Europe.

Source? One that might actually go against me?:)

First of all, the production isn't legal, so a coffee shop has to buy it illegally.
So legalize production. Next!

Secondly, the profits are enormous and for the biggest part it's untaxed money.
It's incredibly profitable because production is limited. Supply and demand. So, like I said, legalize production.Next!
Most of these guys invest it in other illegal things. They sell other drugs as well. XTC, liquid XTC, heroine, cocaine, etc... Others are in the mood for pimping.
Once again, it's because production is illegal, therefore restricted and profitable.

And there are the 'minor' criminal issues as well. Drugs runners that push people on the streets, public urinating, fights, etc...

Wait... You're blaming a DEPRESSANT on fights and public urination? Were the folks that flew into the World Trade Center, Stole fire from Prometheus, and tempted Eve to eat off the tree of knowledge also marijuana users? Very funny.:wink:

You could maybe fantasy how wonderful the legalisation of weed is, but if you life in such society you would maybe talk different.
You could maybe fantasize about how wonderful the illegalization of weed is, but if you lived in such a society, maybe your opinion would change too.:wink:

I know him- he's an idiot.

When did I call G and D an idiot?

Right there.

I've made like 3 links in this one thread.
All of them related to our dispute on how to spell a word, and all three links were to dictionaries. You have yet to source anything on the illegalization of Marijuana.
I back stuff up ( rarely).
Whereas Greed and Death regularly backs his opinions up, and always make a good argument. When he isn't completely drunk, mind you.
And when I do- I put capital letters at the start of sentences.
And that makes you a better poster/debater somehow?

They've correlated frequent use in teen years with schizophrenia. But a correlation is not causation, and it is thoroughly plausible that people who develop schizophrenia are more likely to use psychoactive substances (including alcohol). And in fact plenty of people self-medicate with marijuana because of its calming effects.


I think that any psychoactive substances are no good for a brain in development. That's including alcohol, but also weed. People belief the unkilling myth that weed is harmless. Well it's not. And beside schizophrenia, there could raise other problems as well, such as depressions. Anyone who had a depression can witness how hard it is.


Do you also support criminalizing alcohol? Because alcohol use was also correlated with schizophrenia.

No I do not. I don't know exactly for what reason alcohol is social accepted and weed is not. But it is like it is.

In my country weed is legal, but that doesn't mean it is social accepted.

Who's using it? The losers and the youth out on an experiment (I did it too).

Who's using it? The losers and the youth out on an experiment (I did it too).

So you would have preferred to have been thrown in jail for 'Experimenting'? And the only other people using it are losers? *Casts 'Summon Kryozerkia, the Mod of Canada*

So you would have preferred to have been thrown in jail for 'Experimenting'? And the only other people using it are losers? *Casts 'Summon Kryozerkia, the Mod of Canada*

Did I said that? No situations like in USA are rather dumb in my opinion.

So many other stuff is not allowed, without the risk of going to jail.

Yeah, in general it are losers. If you are sane, you don't use it everyday. But the losers don't mind.

I think that any psychoactive substances are no good for a brain in development. That's including alcohol, but also weed. People belief the unkilling myth that weed is harmless. Well it's not. And beside schizophrenia, there could raise other problems as well, such as depressions. Anyone who had a depression can witness how hard it is.

Depression can always be complicated by recreational drug use, yes. Still not a terribly compelling argument for criminalization of recreational drugs because plenty of things that can exacerbate depression are not criminalized at all.

No I do not. I don't know exactly for what reason alcohol is social accepted and weed is not. But it is like it is.

Well, then your position seems to be contradictory. Alcohol causes problems to society on a much larger scale than marijuana ever could, so if it's problems to society you cite as your reason for criminalization then you should logically be in favor of criminalizing alcohol.

If you do not advocate criminalization of alcohol on the basis of causing problems to health and society, why should we agree with your position of criminalized marijuana on that same basis?

In my country weed is legal, but that doesn't mean it is social accepted.

Who's using it? The losers and the youth out on an experiment (I did it too).

It almost sounds as if the major problem you have with marijuana is that it's not socially accepted.

In which case the answer is to make it more socially acceptable. Step one - decriminalization. Step two and above we can discuss when you agree with me on step one. :)

Did I said that? No situations like in USA are rather dumb in my opinion.

So, why are you so against Marijuana?

And yeah, you said the people who were using it were the "Losers and youth out on Experiment'.

So many other stuff is not allowed, without the risk of going to jail.

And how would that even cut back on Marijuana usage? You think these so-called 'losers' are going to stop because now they'll get a fine (Shock and horror!:eek2:) for doing marijuana? Not that jail does the job either, but...

Yeah, in general it are losers. If you are sane, you don't use it everyday. But the losers don't mind.
So, now everyone using marijuana daily are losers? No exceptions? I'm sorry, I don't like to debate with bigots. Good day. :wink:

Ah, but perhaps I'm a bit better informed on this issue, seeing as I live in a country where huge profits are fueling gangs, who then go off and commit more crimes, with more dangerous implications because of the profits gained from illegal Marijuana trafficking, no?

I never said that legalization of marijuana would end ALL crime related to it. Hell, there's cigarette smuggling still! Related crime to a object of any kind will persist, always. However, legalization cuts down on it intensely.

Source? One that might actually go against me?:)

So legalize production. Next!

It's incredibly profitable because production is limited. Supply and demand. So, like I said, legalize production.Next!

Once again, it's because production is illegal, therefore restricted and profitable.

Wait... You're blaming a DEPRESSANT on fights and public urination? Were the folks that flew into the World Trade Center, Stole fire from Prometheus, and tempted Eve to eat off the tree of knowledge also marijuana users? Very funny.:wink:

You could maybe fantasize about how wonderful the illegalization of weed is, but if you lived in such a society, maybe your opinion would change too.:wink:

A coffee shop isn't like a bar or a pub. If you go to the pub or a bar, you enter it and stay there for a while. A coffee shop isn't like that. While you can hang around (and some do), most enter the shop, buy their stuff and depart. The traffic to a coffee shop is in general high. And a lot foreigners (Belgians, French, Germans, ...) come to here, getting their supplies (I’m talking about a couple of hundreds foreigners every day). They are in their cars for hours and when they arrive they do their pee against the nearest wall. Very great when you're unlucky to live next to the parking spots. The fights occur rather regular and are mostly invoked between drugs-runners and foreigners. The drug-runners sell their stuff on the street, usual a low quality and they usual deliver not enough. When the foreigners go smoke some and detect that their weed is garbage they'll return with the know results: fights often related with knives (and even guns). I do live currently in a country (Belgium) where there are no coffee shops. And no I don't see drug gangs everywhere.

So, why are you so against Marijuana?

And yeah, you said the people who were using it were the "Losers and youth out on Experiment'.

And how would that even cut back on Marijuana usage? You think these so-called 'losers' are going to stop because now they'll get a fine (Shock and horror!:eek2:) for doing marijuana? Not that jail does the job either, but...

So, now everyone using marijuana daily are losers? No exceptions? I'm sorry, I don't like to debate with bigots. Good day. :wink:


Of course there are exceptions, that's why I said 'in general'.

Well, do you drive permanently 200 miles / hour on the highway? I don't. I don't like to pay fines.

They've correlated frequent use in teen years with schizophrenia. But a correlation is not causation, and it is thoroughly plausible that people who develop schizophrenia are more likely to use psychoactive substances (including alcohol). And in fact plenty of people self-medicate with marijuana because of its calming effects.

there actually seems to be some causation at work, though you already need to be at risk for schizophrenia for it to matter. but the risks are so small as to be negligible anyway.

Depression can always be complicated by recreational drug use, yes. Still not a terribly compelling argument for criminalization of recreational drugs because plenty of things that can exacerbate depression are not criminalized at all.



Well, then your position seems to be contradictory. Alcohol causes problems to society on a much larger scale than marijuana ever could, so if it's problems to society you cite as your reason for criminalization then you should logically be in favor of criminalizing alcohol.

If you do not advocate criminalization of alcohol on the basis of causing problems to health and society, why should we agree with your position of criminalized marijuana on that same basis?



It almost sounds as if the major problem you have with marijuana is that it's not socially accepted.

In which case the answer is to make it more socially acceptable. Step one - decriminalization. Step two and above we can discuss when you agree with me on step one. :)

Caloderia,

It's not that there are other harmful things, that weed isn't harmful. I never said it should be criminalized. I don't think it should. Crossing a red light isn't a criminal act as well (unless you kill one?), you just get a penalty.

But making it legal isn't the solution either. Here in the Netherlands, after a few decades of experimenting with the legalisation, we see that a lot of stuff isn't working like we initially thought.

And we are moving back. More and more cities are closing down their coffee shops. They don't do that, if there was no reason for.

It's not out the criminal atmosphere and it leads to a lot of nuisance for non-users who live nearby a coffee shop.

But making it legal isn't the solution either. Here in the Netherlands, after a few decades of experimenting with the legalisation, we see that a lot of stuff isn't working like we initially thought.

um, all of the problems you came up with were entirely bound up with it not actually being fully legal

um, all of the problems you came up with were entirely bound up with it not actually being fully legal

The nuisance would not drop when production AND selling is legal.

And I don't believe that criminality would disapear due the high profits.

And by making it fully legal, eventual braindammages will not disapear.

So, I don't think you're right.

been saying it for ages now... legalise it, but regulate it like alcohol. over 18's only - the psychological danger is most potent to under 16's, iirc. regulation would also allow for taxation and some levels of quality control (like no antifreeze in wine, no woodchips in resin, etc)

I'd say in the case of the US, though, whatever damage the drug may do to people is insignificant compared to the damage done to the Mexican border regions because it is illegal. And then there is the totally ridiculous incarceration rate.

Really a small upswing in the number of schizophrenics is a small price to pay compared to the other problems that full legalization and regulation - in line with alcohol and tobacco - would solve.

I'd say in the case of the US, though, whatever damage the drug may do to people is insignificant compared to the damage done to the Mexican border regions because it is illegal. And then there is the totally ridiculous incarceration rate.

Really a small upswing in the number of schizophrenics is a small price to pay compared to the other problems that full legalization and regulation - in line with alcohol and tobacco - would solve.

It'd be good for the economy too. More stoners with the munchies means more work for 24 hour fast food places and supermarkets.

I prefer the Belgian system.

It's tolerated, but not allowed. This means you can do in your house but not in public. And you are not allowed to do it in the neighbourhood of children.

But it's still forbidden, so when needed the government could interfere. The need is necessary cause some users produce problems for themselves or their surrounding.
But users will not easily face jail-time or a record. Weed producers that's another event.

I like this system, while it's not black/white, the subject isn't either.

It's pretty black and white if you live in a country that has a "WAR ON DRUGS".

It's pretty black and white if you live in a country that has a "WAR ON DRUGS".

Yeah, I heard stories of American students that actually went to jail for pretty long time for smoking some pot.

This is indeed ridiculous. That's tearing apart someone his life.

I've quoted your own source. So drug use when young is harmful, that still fails to say that marijuana leads to schizophrenia, even when you have neither the gene nor used it when young.

Please, it would help if you read the source you link to before you post it.:)

I think the excepted truth of it is that MJ if used during the adolesent period will increase the risk of psychosis in those susctible to it.

I called him an idiot for poor his grammar.

Bwahahahah oohh did you?

You called him an idiot for poor his grammar? Wow just wow.:D

Fuck that's funny!

I think that any psychoactive substances are no good for a brain in development. That's including alcohol, but also weed. People belief the unkilling myth that weed is harmless. Well it's not. And beside schizophrenia, there could raise other problems as well, such as depressions. Anyone who had a depression can witness how hard it is.


Yep I'm with you. Anybody that thinks MJ is harmless, well they are just plain wrong.

However I still belive that ALL recreational drugs should be legalised.

Yep I'm with you. Anybody that thinks MJ is harmless, well they are just plain wrong.

However I still belive that ALL recreational drugs should be legalised.

I prefer tolerated.

I prefer the Belgian system.

It's tolerated, but not allowed. This means you can do in your house but not in public. And you are not allowed to do it in the neighbourhood of children.

But it's still forbidden, so when needed the government could interfere. The need is necessary cause some users produce problems for themselves or their surrounding.
But users will not easily face jail-time or a record. Weed producers that's another event.

I like this system, while it's not black/white, the subject isn't either.
I don't trust a system like that, because it basically says that police can pick and choose when they will enforce a law, and (at least in America) that translates to "white frat boys can do it and get off with a warning, brown people get 25 to life."

I don't trust a system like that, because it basically says that police can pick and choose when they will enforce a law, and (at least in America) that translates to "white frat boys can do it and get off with a warning, brown people get 25 to life."

It's not misused here. The use is tolerated between a specific clear zone. If you cross the border you could face problems. White boys may currently do more as black ones as well.

It's not misused here. The use is tolerated between a specific clear zone. If you cross the border you could face problems. White boys may currently do more as black ones as well.
Call me cynical, but I simply don't believe you. I've never seen a system in which such discretionary powers are always used evenly and equally across all demographics.

But, regardless, I still think it's a bad system. Even if you manage to have a perfectly responsible and impeccably fair police force, I think it is still far better to have clear and specific laws which are enforced in a consistent manner.

Call me cynical, but I simply don't believe you. I've never seen a system in which such discretionary powers are always used evenly and equally across all demographics.

But, regardless, I still think it's a bad system. Even if you manage to have a perfectly responsible and impeccably fair police force, I think it is still far better to have clear and specific laws which are enforced in a consistent manner.

If people feel being treated bad by the police they always can complain at another department (Commission P in Belgium). People do it and no the police isn't always right.

It works smooth. If you legalize it, then you can't fight the correlated eventual problems.

It'd be good for the economy too. More stoners with the munchies means more work for 24 hour fast food places and supermarkets.

And pizza/chinese/other restaurants that do delivery. Several local places have specials just for 4/20 because they get such good business then.

I prefer tolerated.

This does nothing to combat organised crime which is probably the most serious consequence of prohibition.

I prefer the Belgian system.

It's tolerated, but not allowed. This means you can do in your house but not in public. And you are not allowed to do it in the neighbourhood of children.

But it's still forbidden, so when needed the government could interfere. The need is necessary cause some users produce problems for themselves or their surrounding.
But users will not easily face jail-time or a record. Weed producers that's another event.

this system just means that you have all of the problems of straight prohibition, while significantly reducing the costs to the various gangsters running the drug trade.

Right there.
I was talking about Dingle, I miss read your post I think.

All of them related to our dispute on how to spell a word, and all three links were to dictionaries. You have yet to source anything on the illegalization of Marijuana.
I'm a source in my self.
Whereas Greed and Death regularly backs his opinions up, and always make a good argument. When he isn't completely drunk, mind you.
I never said anything about him. The shit I say rarely needs backing up.
And that makes you a better poster/debater somehow?
Did I say that? No.`

Bwahahahah oohh did you?

You called him an idiot for poor his grammar? Wow just wow.:D

Fuck that's funny!

Why?

I'm a source in my self.

Oh this should be good. Why should we consider some random teen a reliable source?


I never said anything about him. The shit I say rarely needs backing up.


And why, pray tell, do you think that? Is this related to your conceit that you yourself are such an authority that the mere fact that you say something makes it so?

Why?

Heh and it gets better! Re-read your own words paying attention to the grammar you used then go right ahead and call your self an idiot!:D

Oh this should be good. Why should we consider some random teen a reliable source?
I meant on weed.



And why, pray tell, do you think that? Is this related to your conceit that you yourself are such an authority that the mere fact that you say something makes it so?

I mean I rarely say things that aren't common knowledge, and I don't debate much.

Heh and it gets better! Re-read your own words paying attention to the grammar you used then go right ahead and call your self an idiot!:D

Any grammar mistakes I make are not through laziness. I mean- how hard is it to press caps lock? FFS.

This does nothing to combat organised crime which is probably the most serious consequence of prohibition.

And where will you draw the line? Should we allow crack as well?

I meant on weed.





I mean I rarely say things that aren't common knowledge, and I don't debate much.

Oh so you're only an authority on weed, at the age of what, 14? 15?

Sorry, but somehow I doubt it. Cite your sources or nobody will take you seriously.

Oh so you're only an authority on weed, at the age of what, 14? 15?

Sorry, but somehow I doubt it. Cite your sources or nobody will take you seriously.

Oh, you know so little about me.

And where will you draw the line? Should we allow crack as well?

yes

even if prohibition was a good idea, it doesn't work. but more to the point, prohibition isn't a good idea, but is wrong even if it did work - perhaps especially if it did work.

if people want to get high, then we should let them. and we should do so in a way that doesn't make them interact with criminals and open up a great market niche best filled by violent organized crime.

Legalise it, but keep it still punishable by law to buy from a dealer.

Legalise it, but keep it still punishable by law to buy from a dealer.

Has it been a week? Fuck, I was enjoying not being jumped upon at every little thing.

Legalise it, but keep it still punishable by law to buy from a dealer.

wait, do you mean keep sales illegal or make vendors get licenses?

wait, do you mean keep sales illegal or make vendors get licenses?

I think, the latter.

wait, do you mean keep sales illegal or make vendors get licenses?

Option 2. Break the link with the street dealers.

And where will you draw the line? Should we allow crack as well?

Yes, we should. The physical harm caused by people using powerful drugs is a lesser evil compared to the gang violence and failed third world states that illegal drug production causes.

Legalise it, but keep it still punishable by law to buy from a dealer.

That's in a way how it is working in Belgium. You may have a little weed, but you're not allowed to buy some. In a way it's weird, but or you buy in the Netherlands or you grow some MJ on your own. I believe (but I'm not sure) that you can have 2 plants or something.

Yes, we should. The physical harm caused by people using powerful drugs is a lesser evil compared to the gang violence and failed third world states that illegal drug production causes.

I guess you don't have kids, don't you?

I guess you don't have kids, don't you?

"won't somebody please think of the children" doesn't work if your proposal results in thousands of kids dead from the violence in other countries you create

"won't somebody please think of the children" doesn't work if your proposal results in thousands of kids dead from the violence in other countries you create

So if we semi legalise MJ, we kill kids (even thousands) in other countries?

How do we do that?

So if we semi legalise MJ, we kill kids (even thousands) in other countries?

How do we do that?

well you see, keeping drug production and distribution illegal means that those best able to produce and distribute are international criminal gangs. these gangs not only fight among themselves (which children wind up in the middle of, one way or another), but actively seek to create no-go zones in weak or failing states. this results in either collapsing infrastructure or lack of improvement, which in turn makes for poorer quality of life and artificially raised mortality rates for the people of those regions. otherwise known as thousands of people dying who didn't have to.

we are morally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions.

I guess you don't have kids, don't you?

No, but if I did I would at least recognise that the prohibition of drugs is not enough to stop people from consuming them - I mean, I'm sure you've noticed that crack cocaine is both illegal and used by many people - and that thousands of kids are dying because they get mixed up in violent street gangs, used drugs cut with highly toxic substances or are caught up in the middle of a war zone, all fueled by drug prohibition. Why don't you think of the children - all the ones that are already dying.

Why don't you think of the children - all the ones that are already dying.

because that leads to uncomfortable conclusions. why mess with that when you can just keep on keepin' on?

Oh, you know so little about me.

Perhaps, kid, but I still have good reason to doubt your claims to be some sort of recognized authority on weed. Or on anything, really.

Perhaps, kid, but I still have good reason to doubt your claims to be some sort of recognized authority on weed. Or on anything, really.

Okay, I smoked it for about 15 months, and for about 5/6 months of that I smoked it every day, all the time. I stopped after a rather bad reaction.

Okay, I smoked it for about 15 months, and for about 5/6 months of that I smoked it every day, all the time. I stopped after a rather bad reaction.

Ah, and a sample size of one is meaningful? Many people have smoked for far longer than that and had no problems.

Ah, and a sample size of one is meaningful? Many people have smoked for far longer than that and had no problems.

...yet.

...yet.

Ah, so any person who would be a counter-example clearly must just be somebody who is not an example yet. It's impossible that you're just wrong, despite the fact that most scientific studies disagree with you, because you are a genius and God's gift to mankind.

You know, just saying that all evidence contrary to your opinion must be wrong without giving a counterargument that demonstrates why it is wrong is rather silly

Ah, so any person who would be a counter-example clearly must just be somebody who is not an example yet. It's impossible that you're just wrong, despite the fact that most scientific studies disagree with you, because you are a genius and God's gift to mankind.

You know, just saying that all evidence contrary to your opinion must be wrong without giving a counterargument that demonstrates why it is wrong is rather silly

Where is this evidence?

Where is this evidence?

Well, considering that all you have presented is anecdotal evidence, technically, I don't need to present any, as the burden of proof is on you if you're going to claim that marijuana is bad.
However, the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis) article seems to indicate that, in general, the long-term effects of cannabis are less than those of tobacco and other legal drugs.

Well, considering that all you have presented is anecdotal evidence, technically, I don't need to present any, as the burden of proof is on you if you're going to claim that marijuana is bad.
However, the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis) article seems to indicate that, in general, the long-term effects of cannabis are less than those of tobacco and other legal drugs.

Back then, I could actually feel myself becoming dumber.

Back then, I could actually feel myself becoming dumber.

So? My roommate smokes pot almost every day. Guess what? He just defended his master's thesis and it was accepted without revision.

What you don't seem to understand is that anecdotal evidence is meaningless, as a sample size of 1 is too small to draw conclusions.

So? My roommate smokes pot almost every day. Guess what? He just defended his master's thesis and it was accepted without revision.

I think if you start smoking at a certain age, it can harm brain development. Once you got to about 17/18, not so much.

I think if you start smoking at a certain age, it can harm brain development. Once you got to about 17/18, not so much.

Yeah, apparently young peoples brains aren't fully developed.

I think if you start smoking at a certain age, it can harm brain development. Once you got to about 17/18, not so much.

the evidence for that is fairly weak, and even then is only for heavy use. like 6 joints a day and initially starting at age 13.

the evidence for that is fairly weak, and even then is only for heavy use. like 6 joints a day and initially starting at age 13.

The evidance for that is actulay very strong, and six Jays a day is not heavy use.

The evidance for that is actulay very strong, and six Jays a day is not heavy use.

as far as i'm aware, the best evidence for it comes from a study of 14 kids in rehab that volunteered to get some brain scans. the study itself noted that in addition to the small sample size, they also had a correlation/causation issue and a slight confounding problem due to the heavy alcohol abuse in over a third of their sample.

we also have just a whole bunch of contradictory studies about the mental effects on long-term heavy users that often find no brain impairment at all a month after usage stops.

six j's a day is definitely heavy use - especially if it is by one's self (which i'm not sure if that's what was meant in the study or not; i'd have to check). getting high at all every day is a pretty good sign that you are using it rather heavily.

as a former heavy to moderate pot smoker, i used to get high with a group of people once every day or two. and we would only rarely smoke six anythings between us. after three in one session you're just wasting it. if your tolerance is up that high, it's time to take some time off.

as far as i'm aware, the best evidence for it comes from a study of 14 kids in rehab that volunteered to get some brain scans. the study itself noted that in addition to the small sample size, they also had a correlation/causation issue and a slight confounding problem due to the heavy alcohol abuse in over a third of their sample.

we also have just a whole bunch of contradictory studies about the mental effects on long-term heavy users that often find no brain impairment at all a month after usage stops.

six j's a day is definitely heavy use - especially if it is by one's self (which i'm not sure if that's what was meant in the study or not; i'd have to check). getting high at all every day is a pretty good sign that you are using it rather heavily.

as a former heavy to moderate pot smoker, i used to get high with a group of people once every day or two. and we would only rarely smoke six anythings between us. after three in one session you're just wasting it. if your tolerance is up that high, it's time to take some time off.

Well that is not the sum total of evidanc, many other studies have been done.

Also consider your own acendotal evidance if as you say you where a heavy smoker(for how many years I don't know) then you must have seen for yourself the effects too much, too young, has had on some of your cronies?

Well that is not the sum total of evidanc, many other studies have been done.

feel free to cite them. seriously, every study i've seen has itself noted problems with both small sample size, confounding factors, and lack of good data showing that any problems found are persistent. and only a couple have been done in the past few years, using better technology.

Also consider your own acendotal evidance if as you say you where a heavy smoker(for how many years I don't know) then you must have seen for yourself the effects too much, too young, has had on some of your cronies?

actually, not really. some of us are in grad school and some of us work construction. we've got teachers and scientists and people not really doing anything in particular. one of us went to jail for selling coke to a cop. we wound up all over the place, and you'd have been more able to predict who would end up where using just family history and pre-drug use test scores and class placement than anything else.

feel free to cite them. seriously, every study i've seen has itself noted problems with both small sample size, confounding factors, and lack of good data showing that any problems found are persistent. and only a couple have been done in the past few years, using better technology.

Meh can't be botherd to google, but feel free to try yourself.


actually, not really. some of us are in grad school and some of us work construction. we've got teachers and scientists and people not really doing anything in particular. one of us went to jail for selling coke to a cop. we wound up all over the place, and you'd have been more able to predict who would end up where using just family history and pre-drug use test scores and class placement than anything else.

Yeah we are still talking about the mental health issues surrounding young use of MJ yes? Because I know many people with mental health issues who never-the-less because of medication, or cognative therepy are still able to live normal lifes and even work. So I guess what I was asking about your own anecdotal evidance was the mental state of these people, not 'where they are'.

Yeah we are still talking about the mental health issues surrounding young use of MJ yes? Because I know many people with mental health issues who never-the-less because of medication, or cognative therepy are still able to live normal lifes and even work. So I guess what I was asking about your own anecdotal evidance was the mental state of these people, not 'where they are'.

the brain development angle is usually not in terms of depression or paranoia or other 'mental health' issues. it is almost always about mental ability and performance, which is why my response is couched in those terms.

but nobody that i know of is getting help to deal with pot-induced mental health issues either. which makes sense, given that the evidence for those is even less good than for developmental impacts.

the brain development angle is usually not in terms of depression or paranoia or other 'mental health' issues. it is almost always about mental ability and performance, which is why my response is couched in those terms.

but nobody that i know of is getting help to deal with pot-induced mental health issues either. which makes sense, given that the evidence for those is even less good than for developmental impacts.

Ahhh I see, well I'm talking exclusivly about the chance of psycosis occuring in those that are prone to it, and those who smoke regularly before the brain has finished it's adulesance development. For which there are loads of studies to look through.

Ahhh I see, well I'm talking exclusivly about the chance of psycosis occuring in those that are prone to it, and those who smoke regularly before the brain has finished it's adulesance development. For which there are loads of studies to look through.

ah. well those, as you note, just show increased incidence among those already prone. and in addition to correlation/causation issues, with that you are talking about vanishingly small parts of the population.

ah. well those, as you note, just show increased incidence among those already prone. and in addition to correlation/causation issues, with that you are talking about vanishingly small parts of the population.

Yet not so small that a claim that there is no correlation, can not be roundly stamped back down agian.:D

The evidance for that is actulay very strong, and six Jays a day is not heavy use.

Yes, yes it is.

So? My roommate smokes pot almost every day. Guess what? He just defended his master's thesis and it was accepted without revision.

What you don't seem to understand is that anecdotal evidence is meaningless, as a sample size of 1 is too small to draw conclusions.
In my experience, drugs don't make a person any smarter or any dumber than they would have been anyhow.

I've known people who claim to use drugs because it takes them to a different level of consciousness and allows them amazing insights. I think they're kidding themselves.

I've also know people who claim that drug use rots your brain by definition, and anybody who uses will be worse off than if they'd never used. I think they're kidding themselves.

Drugs didn't make me able to graduate at the top of my high school class, but drugs didn't stop me from doing it either. Drugs didn't get me my Bachelor's degrees, but drugs didn't stop me from getting them either. Drugs didn't make or break my life, any more than fucking or drinking or playing videogames did.

Yes, yes it is.

Not really.

Yet not so small that a claim that there is no correlation, can not be roundly stamped back down agian.:D

well yeah. they problem is that we know that people begin to self medicate with drugs and alcohol years before there is any official finding of a problem. so we have a difficult time sorting out whether the drug use causes the problem, or if it is just a symptom of it (or both, and to what degree).

Ahhh I see, well I'm talking exclusivly about the chance of psycosis occuring in those that are prone to it, and those who smoke regularly before the brain has finished it's adulesance development. For which there are loads of studies to look through.
I'd, again, point folks towards these (http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/blah-blah-cannabis-blah-blah-blah/) two (http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/) articles by Dr. Ben Goldacre, examining (and largely debunking) the commonly held beliefs surrounding cannabis, including a proper look at the oft-quoted Lancet meta-analysis of the psychological effects of cannabis.

Dr. Ben Goldacre

That man is a living God.

That man is a living God.
I'm sure he'd debunk that. :P

His discussion of swine flu is by far the most sensible I've read so far.

I'm sure he'd debunk that. :P

Can you imagine him on NSG? He'd put some of our most elite posters to shame.

His discussion of swine flu is by far the most sensible I've read so far.

That's what I thought. Rational and reasonable, as per always.

In my experience, drugs don't make a person any smarter or any dumber than they would have been anyhow.

I've known people who claim to use drugs because it takes them to a different level of consciousness and allows them amazing insights. I think they're kidding themselves.

I've also know people who claim that drug use rots your brain by definition, and anybody who uses will be worse off than if they'd never used. I think they're kidding themselves.

Drugs didn't make me able to graduate at the top of my high school class, but drugs didn't stop me from doing it either. Drugs didn't get me my Bachelor's degrees, but drugs didn't stop me from getting them either. Drugs didn't make or break my life, any more than fucking or drinking or playing videogames did.

Oh certainly. I'm not claiming he managed to get his master's because he smokes pot. Just saying that smoking pot doesn't necessarily make you dumb or unmotivated. (Though, I might say that it's likely that any activity that you enjoy and that relieves stress can help you succeed on some level, provided that you don't overdo it.)

well yeah. they problem is that we know that people begin to self medicate with drugs and alcohol years before there is any official finding of a problem. so we have a difficult time sorting out whether the drug use causes the problem, or if it is just a symptom of it (or both, and to what degree).

Scientist know this as well. If they are testing for the effect of MJ they'll exclude the drinkers and other people with 'bad' habits as well.

If they create a report then it is published for peer review and it is very important that others know how the user characterisations of the user population is build up.

Else they could indeed resulting in biased consequences.

So? My roommate smokes pot almost every day. Guess what? He just defended his master's thesis and it was accepted without revision.

What you don't seem to understand is that anecdotal evidence is meaningless, as a sample size of 1 is too small to draw conclusions.

I knew such a guy as well. Studied criminology and graduated without redoing a single year. But maybe such people are exceptions or just needed more time to process the information (more likely).

I can tell you that my STM was certainly (temporarily) influenced by the use of MJ. I never used it in the times of the actual examination.

To get data in the LTM it has to pass the STM.

There’s evidence that MJ is influencing the memory capacities:

Marijuana's damage to short-term memory seems to occur because THC alters the way in which information is processed by the hippocampus, a brain area responsible for memory formation

http://www.4therapy.com/consumer/conditions/article/7130/533/Marijuana,+Memory,+and+the+Hippocampus

Marijuana hinders the user's short-term memory (memory for recent events)

http://www.amsa.org/resource/natlinit/marijuana.cfm

Scientist know this as well.

indeed. which is why they explicitly noted that alcohol abuse was a factor in a significant portion of their sample in the study i was talking about earlier.

indeed. which is why they explicitly noted that alcohol abuse was a factor in a significant portion of their sample in the study i was talking about earlier.

Free Soviet,

That's possible. But you should look at the other studies too. It's rather well documented and all kind of countries did some research about this subject.

That's possible. But you should look at the other studies too. It's rather well documented and all kind of countries did some research about this subject.
Such as?

If it's "rather well documented" it should be relatively easy for you to find it.

Such as?

If it's "rather well documented" it should be relatively easy for you to find it.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the relation between cannabis abuse and the symptomatic course of recent-onset schizophrenia and related disorders. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study over a year using monthly Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale assessments. PARTICIPANTS: Cannabis-abusing patients (n = 24) were compared with nonabusers (n = 69). Eleven patients were mild and 13 were heavy cannabis-abusing patients. RESULTS: Significantly more and earlier psychotic relapses occurred in the cannabis-abusing group (P = .03). This association became stronger when mild and heavy cannabis abuse were distinguished (P = .002). No confounding effect of other variables, eg, other street drugs, was found. In all but one patient, cannabis abuse preceded the onset of the first psychotic symptoms for at least 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis abuse and particularly heavy abuse can be considered a stressor eliciting relapse in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders and possibly a premorbid precipitant.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8161287



Self reported cannabis use as a risk factor for schizophrenia in Swedish conscripts of 1969: historical cohort study
...
Conclusions: Cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia, consistent with a causal relation. This association is not explained by use of other psychoactive drugs or personality traits relating to social integration.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/325/7374/1199


Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence

Conclusions Cases of psychotic disorder could be prevented by discouraging cannabis use among vulnerable youths. Research is needed to understand the mechanisms by which cannabis causes psychosis.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/184/2/110

Or try Google Scholar search on "Schizophrenia cannabis" (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=schizophrenia+cannabis) and fight the 14,500 hits.

Free Soviet,

That's possible. But you should look at the other studies too. It's rather well documented and all kind of countries did some research about this subject.

what is the 'it' in this response?

"Cannabis abuse and particularly heavy abuse can be considered a stressor eliciting relapse in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders and possibly a premorbid precipitant."
So, cannabis can exacerbate schizophrenia and related disorders in patients who already have such disorders, and might be a causal factor.

"Cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia, consistent with a causal relation. This association is not explained by use of other psychoactive drugs or personality traits relating to social integration."
Again, cannabis might be a causal factor.

"Cases of psychotic disorder could be prevented by discouraging cannabis use among vulnerable youths. Research is needed to understand the mechanisms by which cannabis causes psychosis."
For a third time, cannabis might be a causal factor in psychoses, and it shouldn't be used by those who already suffer from psychoses.

Or try Google Scholar search on "Schizophrenia cannabis" (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=schizophrenia+cannabis) and fight the 14,500 hits.
I'll "fight" the hits only so far as anyone claims they show a direct causal link between cannabis and schizophrenia, which hasn't been shown to be the case.

I'm confident of the above, becasue it it had been shown to be the case, then it'd be all over the fucking news. As it is, journalists are forced to resort to mucking about with stats and making exaggerated claims based upon inconclusive findings.