Forums > Social Discussion > Legalize Cannabis Yes/No
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
Posted:
Legalize Cannabis Yes/No
I'm only starting a new thread on this because I wanted to put a poll into it to get a judge of opinion there are a few topics relating to cannabis (go search)
To start of I would like to ask the question should it be Legalized. And your opinions on why or why not.
Legalize Cannabis Yes/No
I'm only starting a new thread on this because I wanted to put a poll into it to get a judge of opinion there are a few topics relating to cannabis (go search)
To start of I would like to ask the question should it be Legalized. And your opinions on why or why not.
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Yeah, co-incidently, I saw a report last night (a study from Norway over thirty years) showing that 1-3 cigs a day tripled the chances of getting heart disease and lung cancer, and, for women, leading to a five times greater incidence. Sounds like the one you mention.
Beefy- fair enough. I will, as I always do when 'moderated' smoking is mentioned, point out (as you yourself do, but just to make it extra clear to the casual reader) that moderated smoking is, for the vast majority of the population, not possible.
ie don't think that you can smoke an occasional cigarette- the vast majority of people who continue to snoke do so in the form of a daily habit, which tends to increase as the years go by.
Beefy- now you've clarified what you meant by 'moderate', I'm still wondering what grounds you have for saying that moderate use (once or twice a week) will not cause cancer.
I'd guess that the risk would be considerably lower than a 5-a-day smoker, but I don't see why it should be zero?
Yeah, co-incidently, I saw a report last night (a study from Norway over thirty years) showing that 1-3 cigs a day tripled the chances of getting heart disease and lung cancer, and, for women, leading to a five times greater incidence. Sounds like the one you mention.
Beefy- fair enough. I will, as I always do when 'moderated' smoking is mentioned, point out (as you yourself do, but just to make it extra clear to the casual reader) that moderated smoking is, for the vast majority of the population, not possible.
ie don't think that you can smoke an occasional cigarette- the vast majority of people who continue to snoke do so in the form of a daily habit, which tends to increase as the years go by.
Beefy- now you've clarified what you meant by 'moderate', I'm still wondering what grounds you have for saying that moderate use (once or twice a week) will not cause cancer.
I'd guess that the risk would be considerably lower than a 5-a-day smoker, but I don't see why it should be zero?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
small member
116 posts
Location: Hastings
116 posts
Location: Hastings
Posted:
I voted no.
Its easy enough for me to get so I don't need it in the offie next to the golden virgina. Maybe dicriminalised like in Holland would be cool. I fully don't believe your a criminal because your partial to a joint.
I voted no.
Its easy enough for me to get so I don't need it in the offie next to the golden virgina. Maybe dicriminalised like in Holland would be cool. I fully don't believe your a criminal because your partial to a joint.
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Posted:
But if you're wrong, and usage did surge in things like Heroin and Crack simply because they're decriminalised (not legalised), there would be a great deal of other crimes to contend with.. burglary, robbery, muggings... plus I do believe that the state has to, to some extent, protect the health and well-being of its citizens where possible, and if arresting every crack dealer they can catch is one way of doing this then I think the expenditure is justified. Certainly one of the biggest problems the youth of my local area back home faces is crack addiction - peer pressure at a young age. Everything else they could do which is negative pales in comparison to the seriousness and severity (as well as the scale in terms of numbers affected) of the crack problem in some areas of Luton. I really believe that tackling it by taking dealers out of communities and rehabilitating users simultaneously and effectively (users should be picked up, I believe, and made to attend rehab, but only as part of a major crackdown - excuse the pun - on dealers) is the only way any positive outcome could be reached. I'm sure there are similar problems for other hard drugs in many areas - Luton's a lot of things, but it's certainly not special!
Written by: i8beefy2
Addiction sucks, but then so do many things in life. Realize your limitations or be eaten by them. Right now we're just fillin gall our prisons with minor drug offenders and its overwhelming the system and making us dump way more money than is necessary into the prison system. Treatment based alternatives would be more effective. It costs something like $30,000 a yr to house someone in prison, and treatment runs cost about $3,000. That's 10x the cost to punish instead of treat. Economically it makes no sense.
But if you're wrong, and usage did surge in things like Heroin and Crack simply because they're decriminalised (not legalised), there would be a great deal of other crimes to contend with.. burglary, robbery, muggings... plus I do believe that the state has to, to some extent, protect the health and well-being of its citizens where possible, and if arresting every crack dealer they can catch is one way of doing this then I think the expenditure is justified. Certainly one of the biggest problems the youth of my local area back home faces is crack addiction - peer pressure at a young age. Everything else they could do which is negative pales in comparison to the seriousness and severity (as well as the scale in terms of numbers affected) of the crack problem in some areas of Luton. I really believe that tackling it by taking dealers out of communities and rehabilitating users simultaneously and effectively (users should be picked up, I believe, and made to attend rehab, but only as part of a major crackdown - excuse the pun - on dealers) is the only way any positive outcome could be reached. I'm sure there are similar problems for other hard drugs in many areas - Luton's a lot of things, but it's certainly not special!
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Im not saying the risk is zero Dave. NOTHING has a zero risk factor (as any institutional review board will tell you). The problem with a lot of those studies is that they are generalizing from specific cases. Im not disputing that you have a higher chance of developing cancer because you partake in something, even "moderatly". I think if you dug hard enough you could find cases of people developing cancer who smoke very lightly as I do. My next question though, would be what other kinds of things are they doing that can also contribute to that. IE are people who smoke more likely to also do X, Y, and Z which also raise chances for this, etc.
By no means is the risk factor EVER zero. But in terms of risks of smoking like that, and say, eating non-organic food which is sprayed with pesticides, or things that contain that one preservative that may cause cancer, etc. I would say that the relative risk is not much more than those everyday activities. Granted, the potential benefit of eating is higher than that of smoking, so it may be a easier risk to take, as I know you'll probably point something out along those lines.
As for the auxililary crimes... my point here is not that drug use causes crime. They commit a crime, they deserve to be punished for it. But to say, oh it's not his fault, he was high, is just making an excuse for unacceptable behavior. The VAST majority of people who get high do not commit such crimes (IE murder, theft, etc.). There may be a higher percentage of criminals in the drug camp than the general population, but I'd think that is to be expected, not because drugs cause crime but because people who are more likely to commit crimes are probably more likely to do drugs too.
I'm pointing at an underlying cause for both behaviors: Lack of self control. Which can be TAUGHT and ISN'T taught enough (I might make a corillary to the "Disciplining your children" thread here). I don't make excuses for my behavior. *I* am the one in control of it.
Im not saying the risk is zero Dave. NOTHING has a zero risk factor (as any institutional review board will tell you). The problem with a lot of those studies is that they are generalizing from specific cases. Im not disputing that you have a higher chance of developing cancer because you partake in something, even "moderatly". I think if you dug hard enough you could find cases of people developing cancer who smoke very lightly as I do. My next question though, would be what other kinds of things are they doing that can also contribute to that. IE are people who smoke more likely to also do X, Y, and Z which also raise chances for this, etc.
By no means is the risk factor EVER zero. But in terms of risks of smoking like that, and say, eating non-organic food which is sprayed with pesticides, or things that contain that one preservative that may cause cancer, etc. I would say that the relative risk is not much more than those everyday activities. Granted, the potential benefit of eating is higher than that of smoking, so it may be a easier risk to take, as I know you'll probably point something out along those lines.
As for the auxililary crimes... my point here is not that drug use causes crime. They commit a crime, they deserve to be punished for it. But to say, oh it's not his fault, he was high, is just making an excuse for unacceptable behavior. The VAST majority of people who get high do not commit such crimes (IE murder, theft, etc.). There may be a higher percentage of criminals in the drug camp than the general population, but I'd think that is to be expected, not because drugs cause crime but because people who are more likely to commit crimes are probably more likely to do drugs too.
I'm pointing at an underlying cause for both behaviors: Lack of self control. Which can be TAUGHT and ISN'T taught enough (I might make a corillary to the "Disciplining your children" thread here). I don't make excuses for my behavior. *I* am the one in control of it.
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Posted:
The self control thing is a very good point, and agree it could be taught, but there is something extremely passionate and destructive within the human spirit which will always resist such teaching. Personally I don't think we'd have a better society if drug use was decriminalised because people will lose control on drugs whether they accept it as responsibility or not. I agree totally that drug use is never mitigating, however.
The self control thing is a very good point, and agree it could be taught, but there is something extremely passionate and destructive within the human spirit which will always resist such teaching. Personally I don't think we'd have a better society if drug use was decriminalised because people will lose control on drugs whether they accept it as responsibility or not. I agree totally that drug use is never mitigating, however.
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
The way it was phrased would be interpreted by most as saying that smoking moderately would not cause cancer ie zero risk.
Perhaps more usefully, how about contrasting moderate smoking with moderate apple eating. Generally, moderate apple eating would be considered not a risk.
Of course it's possible that one could be unfortunate and happen across some apples with a real dodgy dose of illegal and cancer causing pesticides, or maybe one could become seriously alergic to apples? (I'm not sure about that last one).
But,in either case, it's down to an external factor- generally moderate apple eating constitutes effectively zero risk.
This is in contrast to cigarettes which themselves contain the risk factor- carcinogenic chemicals.
In the doses associated with regular smoking at the 10/20/30 a day level, the risk of having cancer caused by cigarettes is considerable- I've seen no evidence to substantiate that what you were saying ie that smoking at the lower level of, say, 2 cigs a week, reduces that risk level to that of eating, say, two apples a week.
Again, you may be right; it's just that, personally, I'm not aware of any studies or evidence that contrasts and compares the cancer risk of moderate smoking to that of consuming moderate pesticide levels
You are right that I'll point out that the benefit of eating food does help to counter any risks associated with it
in fact, because this is the kind of mood I'm in tonight I'll go further and say that, despite the fact that whatever you eat will cause some damage (due to oxidisation etc), we can effetively disregard it because eating is vital to survival- not eating is not an option assuming you value living.
And, it goes without saying that, if studies showed that a given food was risky, anyone concerned could simply cease to use that particular food- that's not an option for your average 20/30-a-day addicted smoker (who undoubtably commenced their smoking career on the 'safe' level of 1/2 cigs a week).
Cigarettes are poison, probably the biggest cause of avoidable death and ill-health around today.
For most, smoking occasionally leads to an addiction of 10/20/30 or more a day, that has a 1-in-3 chance of resulting in cancer, and that is so habit forming that the majority will not free themselves from it, however much they may want to.
Even if moderate smoking of 1/2 a week were not harmful (and I don't personally believe either that it is, or that there is any evidence to show that it is), then the fact that, in the majority of cases, the slide to serious and health damaging addiction is inevitable- leads me to say that it is harmful in another sense.
Lastly, beefy, despite the fact that we tend to disagree quite often, I do like you- so I'll say don't be getting complacent about your 'moderate' smoking- I've seen many people with the firm belief that they can smoke at those levels for the rest of their life- get back to them a few years down the line and they're often full on 30 a day addicts.
In fact I was one of them
I doubt very much that any addict kicked off their smoking career with the thought 'Hey, I want to be a thirty-a-day man!'- usually it's more along the lines of just having 1 or 2 a week and finding it totally inconceivable that it could ever get out of hand,or that the day would come when you decide to quit..... and realising you can't
Generally it's best not to f*ck with nicotine, cos 9 time out of ten, it'll end up f*cking you... badly.
(This has been another long, rambling OWD anti-smoking post: each one is incredibly detailed, lovingly crafted and forms part of a collection that builds into a comprehensive encyclopedia- become a HOP 'social discussion regular' today, and see how many you can collect)
Written by: i8beefy2
Im not saying the risk is zero Dave. NOTHING has a zero risk factor
Written by: i8beefy2- earlier quote
just like smoking cigarettes moderately won't cause cancer.
The way it was phrased would be interpreted by most as saying that smoking moderately would not cause cancer ie zero risk.
Perhaps more usefully, how about contrasting moderate smoking with moderate apple eating. Generally, moderate apple eating would be considered not a risk.
Of course it's possible that one could be unfortunate and happen across some apples with a real dodgy dose of illegal and cancer causing pesticides, or maybe one could become seriously alergic to apples? (I'm not sure about that last one).
But,in either case, it's down to an external factor- generally moderate apple eating constitutes effectively zero risk.
This is in contrast to cigarettes which themselves contain the risk factor- carcinogenic chemicals.
In the doses associated with regular smoking at the 10/20/30 a day level, the risk of having cancer caused by cigarettes is considerable- I've seen no evidence to substantiate that what you were saying ie that smoking at the lower level of, say, 2 cigs a week, reduces that risk level to that of eating, say, two apples a week.
Written by: i8beefy2
By no means is the risk factor EVER zero. But in terms of risks of smoking like that, and say, eating non-organic food which is sprayed with pesticides, or things that contain that one preservative that may cause cancer, etc. I would say that the relative risk is not much more than those everyday activities. Granted, the potential benefit of eating is higher than that of smoking, so it may be a easier risk to take, as I know you'll probably point something out along those lines.
Again, you may be right; it's just that, personally, I'm not aware of any studies or evidence that contrasts and compares the cancer risk of moderate smoking to that of consuming moderate pesticide levels
You are right that I'll point out that the benefit of eating food does help to counter any risks associated with it
in fact, because this is the kind of mood I'm in tonight I'll go further and say that, despite the fact that whatever you eat will cause some damage (due to oxidisation etc), we can effetively disregard it because eating is vital to survival- not eating is not an option assuming you value living.And, it goes without saying that, if studies showed that a given food was risky, anyone concerned could simply cease to use that particular food- that's not an option for your average 20/30-a-day addicted smoker (who undoubtably commenced their smoking career on the 'safe' level of 1/2 cigs a week).
Cigarettes are poison, probably the biggest cause of avoidable death and ill-health around today.
For most, smoking occasionally leads to an addiction of 10/20/30 or more a day, that has a 1-in-3 chance of resulting in cancer, and that is so habit forming that the majority will not free themselves from it, however much they may want to.
Even if moderate smoking of 1/2 a week were not harmful (and I don't personally believe either that it is, or that there is any evidence to show that it is), then the fact that, in the majority of cases, the slide to serious and health damaging addiction is inevitable- leads me to say that it is harmful in another sense.
Lastly, beefy, despite the fact that we tend to disagree quite often, I do like you- so I'll say don't be getting complacent about your 'moderate' smoking- I've seen many people with the firm belief that they can smoke at those levels for the rest of their life- get back to them a few years down the line and they're often full on 30 a day addicts.
In fact I was one of them
I doubt very much that any addict kicked off their smoking career with the thought 'Hey, I want to be a thirty-a-day man!'- usually it's more along the lines of just having 1 or 2 a week and finding it totally inconceivable that it could ever get out of hand,or that the day would come when you decide to quit..... and realising you can't
Generally it's best not to f*ck with nicotine, cos 9 time out of ten, it'll end up f*cking you... badly.
(This has been another long, rambling OWD anti-smoking post: each one is incredibly detailed, lovingly crafted and forms part of a collection that builds into a comprehensive encyclopedia- become a HOP 'social discussion regular' today, and see how many you can collect)
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Haha, love the disclaimer my friend...
I love you too Dave :*
Im aware a lot of people have trouble quitting smoking. But to say they CAN'T I am still going to say is completely wrong. Anyone CAN stop, it's whether or not they will actually DO it. Just like I CAN go look for a better job, but in the end I'm just going to sit here until something pisses me off enough to go DO it. Unfortunatly my sense of responsibility fails me in some of my more mundane life activities... Grr...
My grandfather died of smoking related illnesses. I know one man who lost his legs because of smoking related illnesses, and continued to smoke until he died five years later because he refused to quit. People like to go all fluffy and say "Oh it wasn't his fault, it was the cigarettes" but that's... not right. It's very easy to stop smoking, you just don't do it.
*ducks and runs from those trying to quit, which at this moment includes my girlfriend as well*
Ok, now before anyone starts lining up their sights on me, that was a JOKE, lighten up... well mostly. Stopping doing something that you have had a habit of doing for so long IS difficult, and I realize that. God do I realize that. But to break a habit takes the kind of strength of will and responsibility that I am talking about. I happen to have a very strong sense of each, so quitting things is quite easy for me. I can look at a cigarette and say to myself, "Yea I want to smoke it because I enjoy the action of it. But I don't REALLY want to smoke it, so Im not going to, and Im not going to think anymore about it because its pointless torturing myself with it". On the other hand, my g/f tells me every ten minutes just how much she wants one, and I have to be that voice for her that seems to be innate in me.
Maybe because Ive practiced meditation so I can trun things off in my head if I need to... who knows.
Your point is valid though. Actually, I havn't had a cigarette in months now simply because I don't really want them that much. Usually only when I get really drunk which is quite rare for me. But I have seen the same thing with people I know who have "quit" and then go right back to smoking within two months. I fully accept that the "moderate use" of 1/2 a week does lead to much heavier use in most people. Cigarettes are an odd thing, yes, yes they are. But the fact that this happens to someone should tell them something once they stop... much like an alcoholic, they CAN'T have just one or two. So they SHOULDN'T have any. I know several people like me, however, who this kind of 1/2 once in a while is not detrimental or a slippery slope.
For the record, I don't like cigarettes either, or the fact that most of the people around me smoke. I quit largely because heart disease runs in my family, as well as cancer, and it is just stupid for me to raise my risk for those. I know I will still smoke them once in a while though. I just keep it in check.
I put a lot of stock in our ability to change ourselves however we want as long as we have the will to do it (within reason, of course).
And finally, before I forget, I don't have any evidential studies to cite to support my psuedo-scientific claims of relative harm... I wouldn't even know if such a study were possible (IE what is more cancerous than something else?). I am using reason over empirical methods here. The body heals itself (alberit slowly), and doing damage to it regularly every day will probably make that hard. Doing it OCCASIONALLY however wouldn't have as big of an effect. So for instance, is smoking a pack in one day, and then not smoking for 20 days be better than smoking 1 a day for 20 days? Im not really sure... maybe a doctor could answer that better.
==================
As for the society of drug users thing, I'm going to point at Switzerland (which I don't have accurate numbers for right now) and the Netherlands. The Netherland's decriminalized (not legalized) marijuana several years ago. Heck, they typically don't even prosecute possession of heroin if it's under a 1/2 gram. But if you look at the percentages of population that use drugs vs. other countries, you'll find very similar numbers. I think something like 1.6% to the US's 1.8% (marijuana). I saw that in the paper this afternoon so its fresh in my head. What I mean to point out here, is that the feared trend of a rush to drug use didn't happen in these cases. Decriminalization (almost legalization if you've ever BEEN to Amsterdam...) did not effect usage rates. However, it is much more prevailent to SEE people using drugs there now. Its just not underground anymore.
They do have an "alarming" quickly rising cocaine rate of use though I think. 1.3% or something like that right now. Makes more sense to me. A lot of people love caffeine and stuff... speed type things I would think would have a much higher occurance of usage if it were legalized.
Haha, love the disclaimer my friend...
I love you too Dave :*
Im aware a lot of people have trouble quitting smoking. But to say they CAN'T I am still going to say is completely wrong. Anyone CAN stop, it's whether or not they will actually DO it. Just like I CAN go look for a better job, but in the end I'm just going to sit here until something pisses me off enough to go DO it. Unfortunatly my sense of responsibility fails me in some of my more mundane life activities... Grr...
My grandfather died of smoking related illnesses. I know one man who lost his legs because of smoking related illnesses, and continued to smoke until he died five years later because he refused to quit. People like to go all fluffy and say "Oh it wasn't his fault, it was the cigarettes" but that's... not right. It's very easy to stop smoking, you just don't do it.
*ducks and runs from those trying to quit, which at this moment includes my girlfriend as well*
Ok, now before anyone starts lining up their sights on me, that was a JOKE, lighten up... well mostly. Stopping doing something that you have had a habit of doing for so long IS difficult, and I realize that. God do I realize that. But to break a habit takes the kind of strength of will and responsibility that I am talking about. I happen to have a very strong sense of each, so quitting things is quite easy for me. I can look at a cigarette and say to myself, "Yea I want to smoke it because I enjoy the action of it. But I don't REALLY want to smoke it, so Im not going to, and Im not going to think anymore about it because its pointless torturing myself with it". On the other hand, my g/f tells me every ten minutes just how much she wants one, and I have to be that voice for her that seems to be innate in me.
Maybe because Ive practiced meditation so I can trun things off in my head if I need to... who knows.
Your point is valid though. Actually, I havn't had a cigarette in months now simply because I don't really want them that much. Usually only when I get really drunk which is quite rare for me. But I have seen the same thing with people I know who have "quit" and then go right back to smoking within two months. I fully accept that the "moderate use" of 1/2 a week does lead to much heavier use in most people. Cigarettes are an odd thing, yes, yes they are. But the fact that this happens to someone should tell them something once they stop... much like an alcoholic, they CAN'T have just one or two. So they SHOULDN'T have any. I know several people like me, however, who this kind of 1/2 once in a while is not detrimental or a slippery slope.
For the record, I don't like cigarettes either, or the fact that most of the people around me smoke. I quit largely because heart disease runs in my family, as well as cancer, and it is just stupid for me to raise my risk for those. I know I will still smoke them once in a while though. I just keep it in check.
I put a lot of stock in our ability to change ourselves however we want as long as we have the will to do it (within reason, of course).
And finally, before I forget, I don't have any evidential studies to cite to support my psuedo-scientific claims of relative harm... I wouldn't even know if such a study were possible (IE what is more cancerous than something else?). I am using reason over empirical methods here. The body heals itself (alberit slowly), and doing damage to it regularly every day will probably make that hard. Doing it OCCASIONALLY however wouldn't have as big of an effect. So for instance, is smoking a pack in one day, and then not smoking for 20 days be better than smoking 1 a day for 20 days? Im not really sure... maybe a doctor could answer that better.
==================
As for the society of drug users thing, I'm going to point at Switzerland (which I don't have accurate numbers for right now) and the Netherlands. The Netherland's decriminalized (not legalized) marijuana several years ago. Heck, they typically don't even prosecute possession of heroin if it's under a 1/2 gram. But if you look at the percentages of population that use drugs vs. other countries, you'll find very similar numbers. I think something like 1.6% to the US's 1.8% (marijuana). I saw that in the paper this afternoon so its fresh in my head.
What I mean to point out here, is that the feared trend of a rush to drug use didn't happen in these cases. Decriminalization (almost legalization if you've ever BEEN to Amsterdam...) did not effect usage rates. However, it is much more prevailent to SEE people using drugs there now. Its just not underground anymore.They do have an "alarming" quickly rising cocaine rate of use though I think. 1.3% or something like that right now. Makes more sense to me. A lot of people love caffeine and stuff... speed type things I would think would have a much higher occurance of usage if it were legalized.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Thing is, once a man's lost his legs, maybe quitting doesn't seem that important anymore
One of the myths Allen Carr discredits in his book, is the belief that many smokers have, that if they get cancer they will quit.
He suggests a trip to any cancer ward to have a look at the cigarette butts at the entrance.
Smokers are addicts, and like all addicts, they feel that something is 'missing' inside, and believe that smoking in some way fills that gap.
The very last thing most smokers will do if they lose their legs or get cancer, is feel motivated to quit.
The whole thing is far more complex than you realise- i can tell this from:
Another myth. Many addicted smokers have more willpower and drive than you, yet they can't quit.
I spent years wasting my time trying to quit using 'strengh of will' and failed because I don't possess much in the way of willpower.
If I'd stayed fixated on that willpower nonsense, I'd still be an addict today.
Instead I used the way of understanding and self-honesty, and, as a result, escaped permanantly.
Walking away from addiction, when you truly understand it (with your heart, not just your mind), is easy.
It's finding that understanding which can be so very elusive, and therefore hard.
And, for most of those who don't possess that understanding, I would say that it's totally appropriate to use the word 'can't' in connection with their quitting smoking.
Written by: i8beefy2
Im aware a lot of people have trouble quitting smoking. But to say they CAN'T I am still going to say is completely wrong. Anyone CAN stop, it's whether or not they will actually DO it.
My grandfather died of smoking related illnesses. I know one man who lost his legs because of smoking related illnesses, and continued to smoke until he died five years later because he refused to quit. People like to go all fluffy and say "Oh it wasn't his fault, it was the cigarettes" but that's... not right. It's very easy to stop smoking, you just don't do it.
Thing is, once a man's lost his legs, maybe quitting doesn't seem that important anymore
One of the myths Allen Carr discredits in his book, is the belief that many smokers have, that if they get cancer they will quit.
He suggests a trip to any cancer ward to have a look at the cigarette butts at the entrance.
Smokers are addicts, and like all addicts, they feel that something is 'missing' inside, and believe that smoking in some way fills that gap.
The very last thing most smokers will do if they lose their legs or get cancer, is feel motivated to quit.
The whole thing is far more complex than you realise- i can tell this from:
Written by: i8beefy2
But to break a habit takes the kind of strength of will and responsibility that I am talking about.
Another myth. Many addicted smokers have more willpower and drive than you, yet they can't quit.
I spent years wasting my time trying to quit using 'strengh of will' and failed because I don't possess much in the way of willpower.
If I'd stayed fixated on that willpower nonsense, I'd still be an addict today.
Instead I used the way of understanding and self-honesty, and, as a result, escaped permanantly.
Walking away from addiction, when you truly understand it (with your heart, not just your mind), is easy.
It's finding that understanding which can be so very elusive, and therefore hard.
And, for most of those who don't possess that understanding, I would say that it's totally appropriate to use the word 'can't' in connection with their quitting smoking.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Perhaps I really don't understand then.
I know this is going a bit off topic now, but could you explain this "understanding" you speak of?
You must understand, after years of using and abusing drugs and smoking (since I was 12 actually... Im now 22. And yes I mean using drugs too), I have never experienced this. That is to say, I have never felt that I couldn't stop, and every time I wanted to stop, I did. I've never felt compelled to pick up a drug or a cigarette.Rather every time I did it was a conscious choice, and one which I was completely in control of. And yes, I was a pack a day smoker for a long time. I smoked pot every day. The closest I got to an addiction like you describe it was with Ecstasy, and after the first time I dropped a $100 in a night, I never ate it again. Just stopped dead.
What I mean is... what makes me different? I've always assumed that it was simply willpower based. If I'm wrong, I would love to know it and hear alternative explanations. Advancement of knowledge in any direction is advancement.
See, even with the E, I hit a point where I said "Woh, this is stupid" and just stopped. I would FIGURE someone would also just stop after losing their legs. Or getting cancer. Apparently I may be wrong. Perhaps it is a cognitive dissonance thing, and people change their opinions about smoking so much in order to compensate for such a loss that they lose all power to quit? Sorry, that darn psych major coming in...
-
The other thing is, I have known people with addictive personalities that were far more like this. Most of my friends smoke. One of them got to the point of hacking up blood, so he stopped smoking pot, which he was smoking about an ounce a month of. He litterally couldnt go a day without smoking. But as soon as blood hit the back of his throat, he dropped it. Hasn't touched it since. Still smoking cigarettes unfortunatly, but not pot, and that was by far the worse addiction.
I still want to say it is a matter of willpower... I've seen enough people quit and be successful to believe that. I've also seen enough people fail to feel like its more complicated than perhaps I'd like to make it out to be. Please, enlighten me. Maybe we can take this to another thread to let this one get back to its original purpose too...
Perhaps I really don't understand then.
I know this is going a bit off topic now, but could you explain this "understanding" you speak of?
You must understand, after years of using and abusing drugs and smoking (since I was 12 actually... Im now 22. And yes I mean using drugs too), I have never experienced this. That is to say, I have never felt that I couldn't stop, and every time I wanted to stop, I did. I've never felt compelled to pick up a drug or a cigarette.Rather every time I did it was a conscious choice, and one which I was completely in control of. And yes, I was a pack a day smoker for a long time. I smoked pot every day. The closest I got to an addiction like you describe it was with Ecstasy, and after the first time I dropped a $100 in a night, I never ate it again. Just stopped dead.
What I mean is... what makes me different? I've always assumed that it was simply willpower based. If I'm wrong, I would love to know it and hear alternative explanations. Advancement of knowledge in any direction is advancement.
See, even with the E, I hit a point where I said "Woh, this is stupid" and just stopped. I would FIGURE someone would also just stop after losing their legs. Or getting cancer. Apparently I may be wrong. Perhaps it is a cognitive dissonance thing, and people change their opinions about smoking so much in order to compensate for such a loss that they lose all power to quit? Sorry, that darn psych major coming in...
-
The other thing is, I have known people with addictive personalities that were far more like this. Most of my friends smoke. One of them got to the point of hacking up blood, so he stopped smoking pot, which he was smoking about an ounce a month of. He litterally couldnt go a day without smoking. But as soon as blood hit the back of his throat, he dropped it. Hasn't touched it since. Still smoking cigarettes unfortunatly, but not pot, and that was by far the worse addiction.
I still want to say it is a matter of willpower... I've seen enough people quit and be successful to believe that. I've also seen enough people fail to feel like its more complicated than perhaps I'd like to make it out to be. Please, enlighten me. Maybe we can take this to another thread to let this one get back to its original purpose too...
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Concerning your friend- you seem to be saying that he gave up by willpower. Given that most heavy smokers at the back of their mind are aware that smoking does kill and maim; could it not be that, when he started coughing up blood, it was fear that was factor in his quitting.
Fear, willpower etc can bring about quitting- but they're far from the only, or the best way of doing so.
I say that because a lot of people are in extreme fear (their health is clearly suffering through smoking) or have lots of willpower; yet they can't quit.
----------
As for what makes you different- it's difficult to say from what I know of you.
You seem to think that you have such strengh of will that you are immune to addiction.
And yet, from what you say, it seems you still smoke? (moderatly).
And, despite that will, you spent many years using and abusing drugs.
Often, where drugs are concerned, delusion is a factor. Most heavy smokers have a phase where they consider themselves not addicted, but instead believe that they are choosing to habitually consume 30 instances of a highly toxic substance that has no benefits whatsoever, on a daily basis.
Then again, maybe you're just one of those rare people who genuinely can abuse substances for long periods of time, then just walk away from them with no problem.
------------------------
Concerning what I call 'understanding'- if you really want to get a handle on it, buy Allen Carrs 'Easy way to give up smoking'- it's the best and most consise explanation.
Alternatively, do a search using Carr and my username- there's a lot of posts out there where I elaborate on this issue. If you do that and disagree, or don't understand, specific points, then feel free to bump it up and I'll answer as best I can.
Concerning your friend- you seem to be saying that he gave up by willpower. Given that most heavy smokers at the back of their mind are aware that smoking does kill and maim; could it not be that, when he started coughing up blood, it was fear that was factor in his quitting.
Fear, willpower etc can bring about quitting- but they're far from the only, or the best way of doing so.
I say that because a lot of people are in extreme fear (their health is clearly suffering through smoking) or have lots of willpower; yet they can't quit.
----------
As for what makes you different- it's difficult to say from what I know of you.
You seem to think that you have such strengh of will that you are immune to addiction.
And yet, from what you say, it seems you still smoke? (moderatly).
And, despite that will, you spent many years using and abusing drugs.
Often, where drugs are concerned, delusion is a factor. Most heavy smokers have a phase where they consider themselves not addicted, but instead believe that they are choosing to habitually consume 30 instances of a highly toxic substance that has no benefits whatsoever, on a daily basis.
Then again, maybe you're just one of those rare people who genuinely can abuse substances for long periods of time, then just walk away from them with no problem.
------------------------
Concerning what I call 'understanding'- if you really want to get a handle on it, buy Allen Carrs 'Easy way to give up smoking'- it's the best and most consise explanation.
Alternatively, do a search using Carr and my username- there's a lot of posts out there where I elaborate on this issue. If you do that and disagree, or don't understand, specific points, then feel free to bump it up and I'll answer as best I can.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
member
45 posts
Location: Bville, OK, USA
member
45 posts
Location: Bville, OK, USA
Posted:
Leaglize, no, not yet anyway...
ALLOW INDEPENDANT TESTING!!!! That's what the fight should be for at this stage. With the expected outcomes of such testing being:
1. Poper categorization of the drug. (It isn't heroin and shouldn't be in the same class!)
2. Solid physiological facts about its use and misuse through properly run clinical trials on which to base its legal standing and explore possible medicinal uses.
3. How about developing a THC free strand that can be used for industrial purposes.
that's my stance anyhow...
as you were
Leaglize, no, not yet anyway...
ALLOW INDEPENDANT TESTING!!!! That's what the fight should be for at this stage. With the expected outcomes of such testing being:
1. Poper categorization of the drug. (It isn't heroin and shouldn't be in the same class!)
2. Solid physiological facts about its use and misuse through properly run clinical trials on which to base its legal standing and explore possible medicinal uses.
3. How about developing a THC free strand that can be used for industrial purposes.
that's my stance anyhow...
as you were
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,895 posts
Location: Cambridge UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,895 posts
Location: Cambridge UK
Posted:
Elemental: The THC free strain does exist, it's becoming an alternative crop for some farmers (although they're still quite careful about where they grow it and keeping it secret).
Apparently you'd have to smoke a joint the size of a telegraph pole to get stoned on it
The current state of UK farming gives me serious cause for concern. I think the legalisation of marijuana would reinvigorate our economy, and ensure the preservation of our farming industry.
No matter what people say, a country's ability to produce its own food supply is incredibly important.
At the moment, however, it seems that the countryside is only being regarded as something pretty to be maintained, rather than the actual resource it is, as the UK continues to buy food in cheaply from abroad.
One or two things are going to change in the future though:
Unless serious work is done on biofuel technology, it is going to become more expensive to import food as oil runs out.
When the icecaps melt, much of East Anglia (agrarian farming land, mostly) will be subject to flooding (unless someone can find a way to protect it, and even then, natural disasters will likely be devastating). That is, if we can even still grow food in the new climate caused by the death of the Gulf stream. Kind of hard to plant things when the grounds frozen solid.
When the above two conditions are fulfilled, the UK is likely to find itself up
creek without a paddle
Elemental: The THC free strain does exist, it's becoming an alternative crop for some farmers (although they're still quite careful about where they grow it and keeping it secret).
Apparently you'd have to smoke a joint the size of a telegraph pole to get stoned on it
The current state of UK farming gives me serious cause for concern. I think the legalisation of marijuana would reinvigorate our economy, and ensure the preservation of our farming industry.
No matter what people say, a country's ability to produce its own food supply is incredibly important.
At the moment, however, it seems that the countryside is only being regarded as something pretty to be maintained, rather than the actual resource it is, as the UK continues to buy food in cheaply from abroad.
One or two things are going to change in the future though:
Unless serious work is done on biofuel technology, it is going to become more expensive to import food as oil runs out.
When the icecaps melt, much of East Anglia (agrarian farming land, mostly) will be subject to flooding (unless someone can find a way to protect it, and even then, natural disasters will likely be devastating). That is, if we can even still grow food in the new climate caused by the death of the Gulf stream. Kind of hard to plant things when the grounds frozen solid.
When the above two conditions are fulfilled, the UK is likely to find itself up
creek without a paddle Because ActiveAngel sounds like a feminine deodorant
Like sex, I'm much more interesting in real life than online.
'Be the change you want to see in the world around you' - Ghandi
BRONZE Member
sumthin sumin smmnm....
372 posts
Location: home sweet home, USA
sumthin sumin smmnm....
372 posts
Location: home sweet home, USA
Posted:
Hell Yes!! Legalize it!! in the day and age we live in, it baffles my mind how weed is still illegal, and it is perfectly acceptable both to society and to the government to drink alcohol. Interesting, when you think ,of the fact that alcohol is a leading cause of death and disease, (think of the irreplaceable liver damage) is a major cause of motor vehicle accidents worldwide, is known to induce violence in plenty of people, and i personally know many kids whose parents were too busy getting drunk every day to take care of their kids, who ended up neglected and hungry, becoming the burden of social services and my own family. And what does weed do? chills you out, kills some brain cells (but not as many as you would of you went out drinking and got hammered), makes you hungry, and helps you to get a good sleep.
If weed were legalized, regulations could be placed on it to ensure that it was enjoyed responsibly. Do i think 12 year olds shoulod be allowed to smoke? not really, though i have to admit that this is the age that i first began to partake in this little ritual that i have grown to love so much. Do i think you shouold be allowed to smoke and drive? well, probably for the best interests of society, no. There is a time and a place, just as there is a time and a place to enjoy a nice margarita, or some drinks with some friends, or whatever. you don't drink and drive, and you (shouldn't) let your 12 year old little sister drink, or maybe you would, that's not the point.
i guess what i'm trying to say is this. for so long now, there has been all this controversy over weed, how bad it is for you, and whether or not it should be legalized. and when the day comes where it is no longer a crime to smoke a joint, the government can think up some rules to make sure that people aren't being stupid about it and taking advantage of the situation, or whatever.
what was i saying again? i can't remember.
must be the joint i just finished...
Hell Yes!! Legalize it!! in the day and age we live in, it baffles my mind how weed is still illegal, and it is perfectly acceptable both to society and to the government to drink alcohol. Interesting, when you think ,of the fact that alcohol is a leading cause of death and disease, (think of the irreplaceable liver damage) is a major cause of motor vehicle accidents worldwide, is known to induce violence in plenty of people, and i personally know many kids whose parents were too busy getting drunk every day to take care of their kids, who ended up neglected and hungry, becoming the burden of social services and my own family. And what does weed do? chills you out, kills some brain cells (but not as many as you would of you went out drinking and got hammered), makes you hungry, and helps you to get a good sleep.
If weed were legalized, regulations could be placed on it to ensure that it was enjoyed responsibly. Do i think 12 year olds shoulod be allowed to smoke? not really, though i have to admit that this is the age that i first began to partake in this little ritual that i have grown to love so much. Do i think you shouold be allowed to smoke and drive? well, probably for the best interests of society, no. There is a time and a place, just as there is a time and a place to enjoy a nice margarita, or some drinks with some friends, or whatever. you don't drink and drive, and you (shouldn't) let your 12 year old little sister drink, or maybe you would, that's not the point.
i guess what i'm trying to say is this. for so long now, there has been all this controversy over weed, how bad it is for you, and whether or not it should be legalized. and when the day comes where it is no longer a crime to smoke a joint, the government can think up some rules to make sure that people aren't being stupid about it and taking advantage of the situation, or whatever.
what was i saying again? i can't remember.
must be the joint i just finished...
member
32 posts
32 posts
Posted:
Move to nimbin!
Move to nimbin!
BRONZE Member
Member
99 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Member
99 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Posted:
Although I think that as it grows from the earth, therefore it is natural, maybe it shouldn't be illegal? I mean it must grow for a reason? As all herbs do.
However, I voted that it shouldn't be made legal because I've seen what it can do to people. Some of the people closest to me are heavy smokers. If they do not have a smoke they are not very not nice to be around, are stressed and can't cope with life. Now they can never stop smoking it, they are dependant.
I think people who smoke it are hiding away from things in their life that should learn to deal with without the use of cannabis. Like stress, we get stressed for reason, the reason is whatever made us stressed should be dealt with - with a clear head.
I bet most of the smokers who have replied to this thread are chilled out people, but only when they've had a smoke? I think I'm pretty darn chilled, but naturally. I don't need to smoke the green stuff to do it for me!
I used to smoke and all of a sudden it all got very dark.. things weren't funny anymore, and since giving up life is sweeeeet....
save the minds of humens, don't make it legal!!
Although I think that as it grows from the earth, therefore it is natural, maybe it shouldn't be illegal? I mean it must grow for a reason? As all herbs do.
However, I voted that it shouldn't be made legal because I've seen what it can do to people. Some of the people closest to me are heavy smokers. If they do not have a smoke they are not very not nice to be around, are stressed and can't cope with life. Now they can never stop smoking it, they are dependant.
I think people who smoke it are hiding away from things in their life that should learn to deal with without the use of cannabis. Like stress, we get stressed for reason, the reason is whatever made us stressed should be dealt with - with a clear head.
I bet most of the smokers who have replied to this thread are chilled out people, but only when they've had a smoke? I think I'm pretty darn chilled, but naturally. I don't need to smoke the green stuff to do it for me!
I used to smoke and all of a sudden it all got very dark.. things weren't funny anymore, and since giving up life is sweeeeet....
save the minds of humens, don't make it legal!!
Always remember... one MUST protect thy bread....
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Many, many natural things grown in the earth can easily become poisons when processed; many others are poisonous without any processing.
The reason it grows (in one view) is because that is natures way of perpetuating the DNA of that species- the presence of absense of humanity is irrelavent to it.
Other than that, I agree fully with what you say, having observed much the same when I used to smoke, and also from experiences of my friends who did so.
As far as I can tell, there's nothing to be gained from consuming weed, that isn't available to those who never take it: and, much like nicotine, i suspect that any apparent feelings of 'chilling' or pleasure, are actually simply the relief of withdrawal cravings caused by the drug in the first place.
I wish more people like you, who've used the stuff, then seen it for what it is; would speak up in these threads. I know it's not that easy, as it can seem that many pro-smokers tend to regard anyone who points out the negative aspects of weed as some kind of fascist; but I think it's important, precisely because those who use the stuff tend to be so much more vocal than those who've quit it- and, for potential new users, when it comes to making objective and educated choices, it's good if they can see both sides.
Written by:
Although I think that as it grows from the earth, therefore it is natural, maybe it shouldn't be illegal? I mean it must grow for a reason? As all herbs do.
Many, many natural things grown in the earth can easily become poisons when processed; many others are poisonous without any processing.
The reason it grows (in one view) is because that is natures way of perpetuating the DNA of that species- the presence of absense of humanity is irrelavent to it.
Other than that, I agree fully with what you say, having observed much the same when I used to smoke, and also from experiences of my friends who did so.
As far as I can tell, there's nothing to be gained from consuming weed, that isn't available to those who never take it: and, much like nicotine, i suspect that any apparent feelings of 'chilling' or pleasure, are actually simply the relief of withdrawal cravings caused by the drug in the first place.
I wish more people like you, who've used the stuff, then seen it for what it is; would speak up in these threads. I know it's not that easy, as it can seem that many pro-smokers tend to regard anyone who points out the negative aspects of weed as some kind of fascist; but I think it's important, precisely because those who use the stuff tend to be so much more vocal than those who've quit it- and, for potential new users, when it comes to making objective and educated choices, it's good if they can see both sides.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Member
99 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Member
99 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Posted:
Making it legal will just make it more accessible, therefore more people would smoke it. Smokers can obtain it now, so why make it legal? Smoking will soon be illegal in public places anyway so what will legalising cannabis actually achieve?
I think smoking weed can lead onto harder drugs (I know I was always looking for a bigger and better drug!!) So maybe it would lead to a much bigger problem.
Making it legal will just make it more accessible, therefore more people would smoke it. Smokers can obtain it now, so why make it legal? Smoking will soon be illegal in public places anyway so what will legalising cannabis actually achieve?
I think smoking weed can lead onto harder drugs (I know I was always looking for a bigger and better drug!!) So maybe it would lead to a much bigger problem.
Always remember... one MUST protect thy bread....
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Does anyone really want it legal? Even the people who do smoke it?
I imagine a lot of them would be happy just to have it decriminalised to some extent, as most of the harm caused by its illegality seems to be focused on those in possession of small amounts of cannabis who suffer due to getting a record etc.
And the main jist of those who don't want it legal seems to center on not wanting it presented as alcohol/tobacco currently are, to upcoming generations of young people, by the fact that alcohol/tobacco are openly sold and thus seen as a harmless lifestyle choice, rather than as a(for alcohol) potentially life-destroying addiction or (for tobacco) almost always addictive and health damaging.
As I've mentioned, my opinion is that cannabis smoking is a waste of time, and that it can lead to big problems for some users.
Nevertheless, i certainly don't want a 14-year old kid caught with an eigth to get harrassed by the law and possibly have their future affected by a record.
IMO, it's not good for kids to be smoking weed, but it is totally understandable.
I really don't want it sold legally in shops, cos I do believe that, just as we have major problems with abuse of tobacco (IMO all tobacco use is actually abuse) and abuse of alcohol; we would get more people smoking weed than we currently do.
(I'm not saying I support decriminalisation here, simply floating it as an alternative to legalising/keeping it illegal; mainly so that others can give some views, as I personally, am a little hazy on the pros/cons of legalising vs. decriminalising).
Does anyone really want it legal? Even the people who do smoke it?
I imagine a lot of them would be happy just to have it decriminalised to some extent, as most of the harm caused by its illegality seems to be focused on those in possession of small amounts of cannabis who suffer due to getting a record etc.
And the main jist of those who don't want it legal seems to center on not wanting it presented as alcohol/tobacco currently are, to upcoming generations of young people, by the fact that alcohol/tobacco are openly sold and thus seen as a harmless lifestyle choice, rather than as a(for alcohol) potentially life-destroying addiction or (for tobacco) almost always addictive and health damaging.
As I've mentioned, my opinion is that cannabis smoking is a waste of time, and that it can lead to big problems for some users.
Nevertheless, i certainly don't want a 14-year old kid caught with an eigth to get harrassed by the law and possibly have their future affected by a record.
IMO, it's not good for kids to be smoking weed, but it is totally understandable.
I really don't want it sold legally in shops, cos I do believe that, just as we have major problems with abuse of tobacco (IMO all tobacco use is actually abuse) and abuse of alcohol; we would get more people smoking weed than we currently do.
(I'm not saying I support decriminalisation here, simply floating it as an alternative to legalising/keeping it illegal; mainly so that others can give some views, as I personally, am a little hazy on the pros/cons of legalising vs. decriminalising).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Well I guess it depends on the extent of decriminalization. I think my viewpoint lends itself more to outright legalization. Ok, great it's decriminalized, so now I can walk around with an eigth and not be arrested. Can I grow it? Can I sell it, even though it isn't taxed? So it's illegal to sell it but not to have it?
I would rather it be completely legal so that I could grow it and not have to pay for it at all. I'd be happy to pay for tax stamps to sell it to others too. Would I want it in the local corner store? Yes, because it would make getting it easier when you want it, not that its really hard as it is now...
As for usage rates being higher I completely disagree with you, but until it is done on a large scale here, there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. I can point at Amsterdam usage rates and maybe a few other countries but you will not except the statistics from those countries before and after decriminalization as evidence that it will not effect usage rates, so right now we're both arguing from pure theoretical perspectives (although I feel the statistics are on my side on this one...). Interestingly, cocaine usage is up in Amsterdam however... which is a statistic which might be interpreted in a way supportive of your views about gateway effects.
As for more accessability, marijuana is percieved as being MORE accessable by adolescents than BEER.
https://www.mpp.org/adolescents.html
- this site is excellent, with cited references to studies and statistics galore (with graphs!)
The Dutch have had no increases in crime or usage from their decriminalization. Now this is not outright legalization, but when I was there, it seemed very close, at least enforcement wise. Didn't they try decriminalization in part of the UK a few years back as well, with no increase in usage rates? And also in southern Australia with the same effect (or rather, non-effect)?
==
So even if its decriminalized, we can still be ticketed for small amounts of possession, arrested for large quantities and growing it? No, I say legalize, because I don't feel like I should be paying fines period, or still being at risk for growing my own or distributing it to customers. You want to tax it, go for it. But I don't see anything wrong with it being completely legal, where regulation could actually be imposed.
Well I guess it depends on the extent of decriminalization. I think my viewpoint lends itself more to outright legalization. Ok, great it's decriminalized, so now I can walk around with an eigth and not be arrested. Can I grow it? Can I sell it, even though it isn't taxed? So it's illegal to sell it but not to have it?
I would rather it be completely legal so that I could grow it and not have to pay for it at all. I'd be happy to pay for tax stamps to sell it to others too. Would I want it in the local corner store? Yes, because it would make getting it easier when you want it, not that its really hard as it is now...
As for usage rates being higher I completely disagree with you, but until it is done on a large scale here, there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. I can point at Amsterdam usage rates and maybe a few other countries but you will not except the statistics from those countries before and after decriminalization as evidence that it will not effect usage rates, so right now we're both arguing from pure theoretical perspectives (although I feel the statistics are on my side on this one...). Interestingly, cocaine usage is up in Amsterdam however... which is a statistic which might be interpreted in a way supportive of your views about gateway effects.
As for more accessability, marijuana is percieved as being MORE accessable by adolescents than BEER.
https://www.mpp.org/adolescents.html
- this site is excellent, with cited references to studies and statistics galore (with graphs!)
The Dutch have had no increases in crime or usage from their decriminalization. Now this is not outright legalization, but when I was there, it seemed very close, at least enforcement wise. Didn't they try decriminalization in part of the UK a few years back as well, with no increase in usage rates? And also in southern Australia with the same effect (or rather, non-effect)?
==
So even if its decriminalized, we can still be ticketed for small amounts of possession, arrested for large quantities and growing it? No, I say legalize, because I don't feel like I should be paying fines period, or still being at risk for growing my own or distributing it to customers. You want to tax it, go for it. But I don't see anything wrong with it being completely legal, where regulation could actually be imposed.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
It's a good link, and what it says about beer accessibility possibly shows up a hole in one of my arguments
i.e. that despite alcohol being legal and sold openly, it is illegal for sale to minors.
While this obviously doesn't stop minors obtaining beer, the fact is that most of the usual providers of alcohol are inclined not to provide it to minors as they risk their businesses being closed down. Whereas providers of weed are selling illegaly whether it is to adults or minors.
However, I would say that this, and much of the other stuff, is highly dependant on the groups/cultures involved.
For example, the UK currently has possibly the biggest under-age drinking problem of any european country.
Maybe the reason far more American youths use cocaine than do Netherlands youth, could be that American culture is more disfunctional than Netherlands culture (I'm not saying it is, but it does seem that overall, American youth is prone to a wide range of problems like obesity, school shootings etc, that are not nearly as prevalent in Europe).
Possibly that's insulting to Americans, if so, sorry. Personally I don't take offence when people point out problems in my countries culture (such as the fact that a high portion of Brits cannot use alcohol in any kind of sensible or controlled way).
What I'm saying, and I'm pretty sure you're fully aware of this, is that comparisons of two cultures as different as American and the Netherlands, can't really show anything conclusive about the effects of drug laws.
But, overall, the link you provide talks a lot of sense; certainly, if I thought that legalising weed would lead to less young people using it, I'd be happy for it to be legal- I'm just not sure what exactly it would take to convince me that it would do so.
Lastly, I would point out that, as far as I'm concerned; the point of decriminalisation never was to reduce drug use, but simply to eliminate some of the bad consequences of legislation (eg young possessers of minor quantities being adversely affected by a criminal record) and freeing up some resources to more effectively apply legislation where it counts, or to decent drug education programs (by decent, I mean programs that lead to less people acquiring drug problems).
Written by: i8beefy2
As for more accessability, marijuana is percieved as being MORE accessable by adolescents than BEER.
https://www.mpp.org/adolescents.html
- this site is excellent, with cited references to studies and statistics galore (with graphs!)
It's a good link, and what it says about beer accessibility possibly shows up a hole in one of my arguments
i.e. that despite alcohol being legal and sold openly, it is illegal for sale to minors.
While this obviously doesn't stop minors obtaining beer, the fact is that most of the usual providers of alcohol are inclined not to provide it to minors as they risk their businesses being closed down. Whereas providers of weed are selling illegaly whether it is to adults or minors.
However, I would say that this, and much of the other stuff, is highly dependant on the groups/cultures involved.
For example, the UK currently has possibly the biggest under-age drinking problem of any european country.
Maybe the reason far more American youths use cocaine than do Netherlands youth, could be that American culture is more disfunctional than Netherlands culture (I'm not saying it is, but it does seem that overall, American youth is prone to a wide range of problems like obesity, school shootings etc, that are not nearly as prevalent in Europe).
Possibly that's insulting to Americans, if so, sorry. Personally I don't take offence when people point out problems in my countries culture (such as the fact that a high portion of Brits cannot use alcohol in any kind of sensible or controlled way).
What I'm saying, and I'm pretty sure you're fully aware of this, is that comparisons of two cultures as different as American and the Netherlands, can't really show anything conclusive about the effects of drug laws.
But, overall, the link you provide talks a lot of sense; certainly, if I thought that legalising weed would lead to less young people using it, I'd be happy for it to be legal- I'm just not sure what exactly it would take to convince me that it would do so.
Lastly, I would point out that, as far as I'm concerned; the point of decriminalisation never was to reduce drug use, but simply to eliminate some of the bad consequences of legislation (eg young possessers of minor quantities being adversely affected by a criminal record) and freeing up some resources to more effectively apply legislation where it counts, or to decent drug education programs (by decent, I mean programs that lead to less people acquiring drug problems).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
Does anyone know what stays in your blood stream longer?
Nicotine or THC?
Does anyone know what stays in your blood stream longer?
Nicotine or THC?
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Nicotine stays in the bloodstream in quantity for not very long, a few hours, but is there for three days I believe... which means after three days its completely gone.
THC, which is fat soluable, is used up in several hours time (the high feeling), however because it is fat soluable, it also gets stored in the fat cells of your body, for a month or more. If you've been smoking for a long time and put on weight during that time, its likely still trapped in the new fat cells, so six months to a year after you quit, if you start working out and suddenly burning that fat, you can actually still test possitive because it is being released by those cells again. However, the metabolised part of THC that crosses the blood-brain barrier is completely gone within 24 hours.
Nicotine stays in the bloodstream in quantity for not very long, a few hours, but is there for three days I believe... which means after three days its completely gone.
THC, which is fat soluable, is used up in several hours time (the high feeling), however because it is fat soluable, it also gets stored in the fat cells of your body, for a month or more. If you've been smoking for a long time and put on weight during that time, its likely still trapped in the new fat cells, so six months to a year after you quit, if you start working out and suddenly burning that fat, you can actually still test possitive because it is being released by those cells again. However, the metabolised part of THC that crosses the blood-brain barrier is completely gone within 24 hours.
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
Posted:
blood
blood
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
SILVER Member
addict
475 posts
Location: Van Diemans Land, Australia
addict
475 posts
Location: Van Diemans Land, Australia
Posted:
Personally i dont see weed as anything more dangerous than Alcohol or Tobacco.
I have only smoked weed twice before. Both times it was at a party when i had a beer and a ciggarette in each of the other hands.
I got nailed off my [censored] trolley both those nights. the second time it was just last friday actually.
and from what i can remember those few hours were quite pleasant.
We were all sitting around laughing and chatting and everyone loved everyone else.
Lets face it though. anything mind altering is always going to be harmfull when abused. and there will ALWAYS be people out there who are going to be abuse it. Very weak minded people to let it control them the way it does.
i dont want it sold in shops or legal to grow great big plantations on your land.
But it would be good if it wasnt illegal to be caught stoned or to have a few grams and be smoking it.
Personally i dont see weed as anything more dangerous than Alcohol or Tobacco.
I have only smoked weed twice before. Both times it was at a party when i had a beer and a ciggarette in each of the other hands.
I got nailed off my [censored] trolley both those nights. the second time it was just last friday actually.
and from what i can remember those few hours were quite pleasant.
We were all sitting around laughing and chatting and everyone loved everyone else.
Lets face it though. anything mind altering is always going to be harmfull when abused. and there will ALWAYS be people out there who are going to be abuse it. Very weak minded people to let it control them the way it does.
i dont want it sold in shops or legal to grow great big plantations on your land.
But it would be good if it wasnt illegal to be caught stoned or to have a few grams and be smoking it.
Fair luna bright, fair luna moon
it shines at night but fades too soon
fair luna moon, fair luna bright
forever we dance
we dance under starlight
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Post deleted by onewheeldave
Post deleted by onewheeldave
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I agree.
It's a dangerous myth that it's weak-minded people who fall victim to addiction/abuse.
Allen Carr pointed out that, despite being a srong-willed individual who, in every other aspect of his life, was in control (he was a successful businessman, with a family) was a 120-a-day cigarette addict.
Many cigarette addicts are not weak-willed- addiction is not about will, and, often, a strong will does not suffice to escape addition.
This is why the method of quitting in Carrs book, specifically avoids the use of willpower, and instead, focuses on seeing through the delusions that are at the root of an individuals addiction.
The reason why I point this out, and why I say it is a dangerous myth, is because, if people who see themselves as not 'weak-willed' believe that only weak-willed people are prone to addiction; they will be less inclined to avoid dabbling with smoking (or other addictive drugs).
Anyone can fall victim to addiction, regardless of whether they are strong-willed, weak-willed, in control of their lives etc.
In fact, this is the very reason why there are so many addicts- they were complacent, and believed themselves safe, because they weren't 'addict-material'.
I doubt that any long-term nicotine-addict believed that, when they smoked their first cigarettes, they would end up in the way they did; they thought 'it won't happen to me, because I'm in control, and I will be able to stop.
Written by: DoktorSkell
Personally i dont see weed as anything more dangerous than Alcohol or Tobacco.
I agree.
Written by: DoktorSkell
Lets face it though. anything mind altering is always going to be harmfull when abused. and there will ALWAYS be people out there who are going to be abuse it. Very weak minded people to let it control them the way it does.
It's a dangerous myth that it's weak-minded people who fall victim to addiction/abuse.
Allen Carr pointed out that, despite being a srong-willed individual who, in every other aspect of his life, was in control (he was a successful businessman, with a family) was a 120-a-day cigarette addict.
Many cigarette addicts are not weak-willed- addiction is not about will, and, often, a strong will does not suffice to escape addition.
This is why the method of quitting in Carrs book, specifically avoids the use of willpower, and instead, focuses on seeing through the delusions that are at the root of an individuals addiction.
The reason why I point this out, and why I say it is a dangerous myth, is because, if people who see themselves as not 'weak-willed' believe that only weak-willed people are prone to addiction; they will be less inclined to avoid dabbling with smoking (or other addictive drugs).
Anyone can fall victim to addiction, regardless of whether they are strong-willed, weak-willed, in control of their lives etc.
In fact, this is the very reason why there are so many addicts- they were complacent, and believed themselves safe, because they weren't 'addict-material'.
I doubt that any long-term nicotine-addict believed that, when they smoked their first cigarettes, they would end up in the way they did; they thought 'it won't happen to me, because I'm in control, and I will be able to stop.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
member
39 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
member
39 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
I believe that ALL drugs should be legalised because the state should not have control over people's bodies.
At the same time, I know that drugs are bad for your health and bad for your mind and I'd discourage their use in general.
It's not hard to understand why people take drugs - we live in an incredibly alienating system where people often feel isolated and unhappy. Yet taking drugs, in a way, is really just succumbing to the pressures of the system and prevents people from fighting to change it.
As various people in this thread have already pointed out, you can become addicted to virtually anything. But there is certainly a huge gap between things that are psychologically addictive and substances that are physiologically addictive.
And now I'm going to go a little off topic and talk about my personal drug use... I've smoked weed for about the last three years. For the most part, it has been a recreational/just-every-once-in-a-while kind of thing. I have had moments where I've smoked constantly for days/weeks, but usually manage to put it down eventually. I tend to smoke more often when I'm down/depressed or something unpleasant has occurred in my life - this is what 'psychological addiction' means to me, it's really just another form of repression.
I'm addicted to caffeine, which is obviously a physiological thing. Pot has no withdrawal symptoms, so I don't understand how it can possibly be physiologically addictive..
I bought a new bong recently. It has a very large chamber and very thick glass to prevent it from breaking. Ever since I got it (and ever since I discovered a dealer who lives just a few hundred metres down the road from my house), I've been smoking HEAPS. Do you think that maybe people become addicted to smoking the actual bong rather than the weed? I kind of feel like that's happening to me at the moment. Things are pretty stable in my life right now so I don't feel an overwhelming need to smoke, but maybe it's just because I've finished school for the year and have nothing else to do whilst I am stuck in the suburban hell where I live. At least I refrain from smoking when I have to go to work or meet up wih friends, etc.
Worse things have happened to me when I've been drunk. I strongly believe that alcohol is the more dangerous substance out of the two. I really like being stoned, but hate smoking. I really like the social practice of drinking with friends, but hate being drunk.
What I hate about being stoned is that it makes me too uncoordinated to spin poi, and too "out of it" to read anything or concentrate on listening to people talk, etc.
Weed is really the only illicit drug that I have had experience with. I've taken ecstasy a couple of times, and would probably do it again. I'm thinking about taking acid on New Year's Eve, but confess I am a little scared about it. Anyway, I've run out of cash so I can't afford to buy anymore weed which is probably for the best!
I believe that ALL drugs should be legalised because the state should not have control over people's bodies.
At the same time, I know that drugs are bad for your health and bad for your mind and I'd discourage their use in general.
It's not hard to understand why people take drugs - we live in an incredibly alienating system where people often feel isolated and unhappy. Yet taking drugs, in a way, is really just succumbing to the pressures of the system and prevents people from fighting to change it.
As various people in this thread have already pointed out, you can become addicted to virtually anything. But there is certainly a huge gap between things that are psychologically addictive and substances that are physiologically addictive.
And now I'm going to go a little off topic and talk about my personal drug use... I've smoked weed for about the last three years. For the most part, it has been a recreational/just-every-once-in-a-while kind of thing. I have had moments where I've smoked constantly for days/weeks, but usually manage to put it down eventually. I tend to smoke more often when I'm down/depressed or something unpleasant has occurred in my life - this is what 'psychological addiction' means to me, it's really just another form of repression.
I'm addicted to caffeine, which is obviously a physiological thing. Pot has no withdrawal symptoms, so I don't understand how it can possibly be physiologically addictive..
I bought a new bong recently. It has a very large chamber and very thick glass to prevent it from breaking. Ever since I got it (and ever since I discovered a dealer who lives just a few hundred metres down the road from my house), I've been smoking HEAPS. Do you think that maybe people become addicted to smoking the actual bong rather than the weed? I kind of feel like that's happening to me at the moment. Things are pretty stable in my life right now so I don't feel an overwhelming need to smoke, but maybe it's just because I've finished school for the year and have nothing else to do whilst I am stuck in the suburban hell where I live. At least I refrain from smoking when I have to go to work or meet up wih friends, etc.
Worse things have happened to me when I've been drunk. I strongly believe that alcohol is the more dangerous substance out of the two. I really like being stoned, but hate smoking. I really like the social practice of drinking with friends, but hate being drunk.
What I hate about being stoned is that it makes me too uncoordinated to spin poi, and too "out of it" to read anything or concentrate on listening to people talk, etc.
Weed is really the only illicit drug that I have had experience with. I've taken ecstasy a couple of times, and would probably do it again. I'm thinking about taking acid on New Year's Eve, but confess I am a little scared about it. Anyway, I've run out of cash so I can't afford to buy anymore weed which is probably for the best!
newbie
9 posts
Location: Glasgow
9 posts
Location: Glasgow
Posted:
You can throw out as many reasons as you like one way or another on this topic..
I would love to see it legalised, for one basic reason..
Stick it in a plastic bottle, or in a spray form..
Slap a government health warning on it..
Call it a pain killer...
There are so many things out there that are far worse for you that are completely legal and no one would blink an eye at.. Why? No social stigma.
If no one ever said cannabis was a drug and illegal, would anyone consider it wrong to do it?
As i'm sure so many people have stated before, its not PHYSCIALLY addictive, there have been no recorded deaths from cannabis overdose, and it has applications in multiple sclerosis (spelling?) pain relief, as well as arthritis and other illnesses..
Compare that one off to alcohol.. which is legal..
You can throw out as many reasons as you like one way or another on this topic..
I would love to see it legalised, for one basic reason..
Stick it in a plastic bottle, or in a spray form..
Slap a government health warning on it..
Call it a pain killer...
There are so many things out there that are far worse for you that are completely legal and no one would blink an eye at.. Why? No social stigma.
If no one ever said cannabis was a drug and illegal, would anyone consider it wrong to do it?
As i'm sure so many people have stated before, its not PHYSCIALLY addictive, there have been no recorded deaths from cannabis overdose, and it has applications in multiple sclerosis (spelling?) pain relief, as well as arthritis and other illnesses..
Compare that one off to alcohol.. which is legal..
Its not that stupidity should have a death sentance, just remove the warning labels and let nature take its course...
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Does that mean all people, or are you happy with the state setting age limits for drug use?
Written by: Philomel
I believe that ALL drugs should be legalised because the state should not have control over people's bodies.
Does that mean all people, or are you happy with the state setting age limits for drug use?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
member
39 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
member
39 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
All people, I guess, I'm not really sure. It's not an issue that I've spent much time fleshing out, but I shall get back to you when I have more thoughts on it.
Written by: onewheeldave
Does that mean all people, or are you happy with the state setting age limits for drug use?
All people, I guess, I'm not really sure. It's not an issue that I've spent much time fleshing out, but I shall get back to you when I have more thoughts on it.
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com