Paul Harvey's hopes for childhood

[BuddMan]

How can you say personal experience when you have never smoked it?? Wow, what ignorance. And why would the government hold a study on it and then try to bury their own study? Seems kind of odd to me. There are no long term effects of weed on your memory, etc. If you quit smoking, the effects are gone. Simple as that.

[KvHagedorn]

And how can you diss my perceptions when you are ignorant of what you may have lost the ability to perceive?

That's precisely why I don't smoke it.. I've had too many friends become less thoughtful in general because of it.. but then that's just my perception. I'm sure you could invalidate my perception by shouting loudly enough, though.. so go right ahead. That's one of the things I noticed.. arguing with people becomes more and more pointless, because they aren't reasoning as well as they do without the influence. The chemicals stay in your body for 30 days after smoking it, enough to show up in urinalysis, so it is reasonable to say that it may have a lingering effect on one's personality. As I say, I cannot prove this in any other way than to tell you that I HAVE seen my friend's personalities change due to smoking pot.

[BuddMan]

You're perception may also be flawed as well, and until you smoke any pot yourself, I cannot take your view seriously. I have actually cited studies, something that takes personal perception out of the view, and states facts based on results. You have not.

And of course the drug will alter your behaivor as long as you keep smoking it, but once you quit, the effects are gone. The drug is detectable in your system for up to 30 days, but its after-effects last at the most 5 days after smoking (bascially it's like a hangover with alcohol, just lasts a little longer and is way more accute- but in no way does this impair day-to-day activities like a hangover with alcohol would.). There have been times I have quit for months, and when I did quit I felt the way I did before I ever started smoking. Of course you wouldn't know this because you have never done it, and you refuse to look at the facts. But I don't think it's bad that you don't smoke either. I just think it's wrong to lock up someone for doing it.

[BuddMan]

I found this kind of funny....:

"Instead of proving that drug-taking while driving increased the risk of accident, researchers found that the mellowing effects of cannabis made drivers more cautious and so less likely to drive dangerously.

Although the cannabis affected reaction time in regular users, its
effects appear to be substantially less dangerous than fatigue or
drinking. Research by the Australian Drugs Foundation found that
cannabis was the only drug tested that decreased the relative risk of having an accident.

The findings will embarrass ministers at the Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) who commissioned the study after pressure from motoring organisations and anti-drug campaigners. Lord Whitty, the tansport minister, will receive the report later this month."

[Wombat]

[/quote]You have no documentation to prove this. There have been many studies done on weed, even by the government, to see what dangerous side effects it causes. The results on every test....none. These reports were never made public though because of one thing--the government. Smoking weed is safer than smoking cigarettes. This has been proven......And why would the government hold a study on it and then try to bury their own study? Seems kind of odd to me. There are no long term effects of weed on your memory, etc. If you quit smoking, the effects are gone. Simple as that. [/quote]Okay, cite your sources. Oh, I'm sorry, you have imaginary reports and conspiracy theories. Hey, <A HREF="http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun97/nida-26.htm">here's</A> a study that the government didn't cover up.

You're perception may also be flawed as well, and until you smoke any pot yourself, I cannot take your view seriously.

I had a date use this "argument" with me as well, and I laugh just as hard at you now as I did at her. What kind of ass-backwards logic is this?

There are no long term effects of weed on your memory, etc. If you quit smoking, the effects are gone. Simple as that.

Bullshit. I had a friend that smoked hard for years. He quit, and 6-months later his memory was still worthless. It took a long time for that to clear out, and it's still not quite "better."

How can you tell us what the lasting effects of marijuana are, when even the scientific community can't? Man may have been smoking pot for millenia, but we only found anandamide a decade ago, and we're still figuring out how all that works.

Where did you find that last statement of yours? It's the only "study" you've quoted so far, but you don't give anything to back it up. Just <I>think</I> for a minute about what you've said: Marijuana impairs short-term memory, and decreases motor skills, yet improves driving? Let's see how well you react when that car comes out of your blind spot, since you've forgotten he's there.
It's a mind-altering substance that you admittedly use because it relaxes you. What makes you think I should have to deal with stoned drivers when I'm on the highway?

FWIW, I support legalization as a controlled substance, but a bad argument is a bad argument. You're not advocating legalization, you're advocating irresponsibility.

[BuddMan]

Haha, that's so funny you brought up that article. That substance they used for one is NOT marajuana, but only produces effects similar to it. Plus, that substance is addictive, marajuana is not. Thanks for that laugh though. Here's some articles you can read up on.

http://www.marijuanafacts.org/

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/marijuana/

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3383

[KvHagedorn]

I had a date use this "argument" with me as well, and I laugh just as hard at you now as I did at her. What kind of ass-backwards logic is this?

The kind someone would use when his reason has been impaired.. BTW, thanks for backing me up on that one, Bud.

[BuddMan]

It's sad when I actually have presented facts and no one else has. Makes you wonder whose perception is impaired. We can argue perception for a lifetime, drugs or no drugs. Everyone has a different one. Was J.R.R. Tolkien's perception impaired when he wrote Lord of the Rings (smoked weed BTW), or was Albert Schweitzer's as well when he became a humanitarian, theologian, missionary, organist, and medical doctor (yep, he smoked too). I dunno. That's something we could argue about forever and never come to an answer. What determines a correct perception? You guys are arguing something you cannot answer. Until I see actual proof for any reason that weed is more dangerous than alcohol, or dangerous overall (taken into moderation of course....anything is dangerous when abusing it, even food is), then I'll consider your arguments. But all you have given me are opinions and your "perceptions."

[roadie]

who is this paul harvey guy anyway???

[Dogbert]

I tend to agree with Buddman here.

I believe (and it was sort of proven too many times) that everything is good and everything is bad.

What makes the difference is - Quantities.

As some kind of quick proof, most medicines contain substances which are considerd toxins. Yet, under perscription, they can save your life.
On the other hand, in your food you consume many substances that are considered ok, but in large quantities could lead to a slow and painfull death.

Now, you can start arguing about how much of what is ok, and how much is bad.

I knew pot smokers who are really ok before, during and after smoking pot. Same as some Alchohol drinkers.
On the other hand I know other who are the opposite (no big deal, they're ****ed up with or without the help of any substance) and some in between. This includes people who are totally ****ed up before and a long time after smoking pot, while during and some time after smoking pot, they become really better people (much less nervous, can concentrate much longer, understand things much quicker and have a much greater positive output than the usual).

Always remember that as in the case of medicine, a substance that is good to one person can be bad to another.

[Joel]

I say that is you are going to, knowing it's adverse and ill effects, lung cancer and liver damage to name a couple, legalize cigerettes and alcohol then I know of no reason not to legalize pot and regulate it and tax just like you do the others.

As for pot still showing up in your system serveral weeks later the same thing happens with alcohol, nicotine and almost anything you take in your body. The difference is the amount being tested for. When testing for pot all they are looking for is any trace of it at all not a certain level as in alcohol testing.

And as Dogbert pointed out anything in excess is bad including sex.

Joel

[Dogbert]

SEX IS BAD !?

Oh my god...

[ZokesPro]

Did someone say that too much sex is bad? I believe Joel said it first.

Originally posted by Dogbert
SEX IS BAD !?

Oh my god...

If too much sex is bad then please!!!! Kill me now!!!! Why is oo much sex bad? If anything it's all good!!!

I can't see any adverse effect caused by too much sex other than the fact that you'd be EXTREMELY satisfied and happy to know that you can perform!

[az]

Muscular strain

AZ

[ZokesPro]

Originally posted by az
Muscular strain

AZ

Ok, good point.

But I'd rather have muscle strain then being stoned or drunk, if you know what I mean?

P.S: I got a little scared when Joel said that too much sex was bad, but if it's just muscle strain than whatever, I can handle that!