Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Marijuana Kills

Razorguns said:
We've been down this road before.

What you going to do when:

1) H.S. kids smoke pot everywhere and in school. Grades drop.

2) Person smoking weed slams into car killing 13 y/o girl

3) All weed, because it's cheaper, is imported from 3rd world countries where drug cartels enslave locals, kill rivals and govt officials to control their trade. Look up 'diamond trade'.

4) Person smokes weed on sidewalk, and you have to breathe it in every day on your way to work (2nd hand smoke).

5) Your employer now has to deal with workers who come in high. And 10,000 complaints on 'I think my boss is high' come in.

The world is a bit bigger than "I think it should be legal because it makes me feel so good!". There are repurcassions, and as usual, lazy thinkers don't want to think that far ahead.

legalize weed, outlaw alcohol - if you really wanted to go there.

r
lol dude we have all that now, except on top of it we spend billions to put people in jails and prisons! Ignore the issues and act like they don't exist since its illegal? Legalizing it will raise awareness, its really not all that big of a deal, which is why pretty much anyone can get it.
 
Razorguns said:
Your answers don't address the question - just redirect it I could play the same game back at you with every point you made (kids drink beer, so let's make it age-free. No one thought illegal aliens could fly planes into buildings either. When has us-made been cheaper than foreign-made?).

Do you really think non-weed smoking soccer moms give a shit about weed rights? Do you think illegal mexicans do? Do you think corporate america, which controls the president, does? Do you think your boss wants to drag out the weed-tester machine every time an employee acts sleep at work? Do you want every lawyer to appeal guilty verdicts because they think someone on the jury was high?

When it becomes an advantage to society and big business and the government and the healthcare industry - it will.

Right now all those points I said above point to a disadvantage, so no - it will never be legal, ever, and for good reasons.

r

I respect your opinion R and agree it probably will never be sold over the counter at 7-11. You bring up valid points of concern. However, government and the health care industry is already involved, it's just a matter of time.
 
Hmm. Sounds like a rat got what she deserved.

I happen to believe all drugs should be legal for purchase from a state run facility.
Until that day - don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
MOST IMPORTANTLY: Snitches get stitches. As it should be.
 
Lestat said:
lol dude we have all that now, except on top of it we spend billions to put people in jails and prisons!.

And that's fantastic.

Drug Laws were created as a great way for the middle and upper class to railroad useless poor people into jails and keep them there. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant.

There have been plenty of books and shows done about how prisons are used to keep criminal poor people in jail away from the rest of society. Society is not going to upset the status quo so you can smoke a big fattie outside.

Want marij laws changed? Convince the rest of society who don't give a shit. How democratic. Good luck with that tho.

r
 
legalization is already in the works


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/31/frank.bill.ireport/index.html

(
CNN) -- Rep. Barney Frank introduced a House bill Wednesday that would end federal penalties for Americans carrying fewer than 100 grams, or about a quarter-pound, of marijuana.


Rep. Barney Frank's intern, Avery Morrow, says Frank joked that his bill didn't have a "high chance" of passing.

Current laws targeting marijuana users place undue burdens on law enforcement resources, punish ill Americans whose doctors have prescribed the substance and unfairly affect African-Americans, the Democrat from Massachusetts said.

CNN.com asked iReporters to share their views on Frank's proposed bill, and to talk about marijuana laws in the U.S. Below is a selection of their responses, some of which have been edited for length and clarity.

qotsa7777: I absolutely agree with the legalization of recreational marijuana use as a means to end the damaging and unproductive war on responsible, non violent users, but if we deny individuals the right to cultivate and sell marijuana for profit (with regulation similar that of alcohol), than we continue to perpetuate the most damaging aspect of marijuana prohibition: the funneling of money to gangs.

Not everyone will want, or be able to grow their own supply of marijuana, so they will still go to the same dealers that have been supplying them before the ban on possession was lifted.

Why not divert all of that money and tax revenue to businesses owned by citizens and regulated by the government? Think of it, the amount of jobs created by the rise of an entire new industry the size and scope of alcohol (a multibillion dollar a year business), would be an astounding boom to our floundering economy.

Don't Miss
Legislators aim to snuff out penalties for pot use
iReport.com: Is it time to legalize pot?
TJ1: I have been in hiding too long on this subject. I have a medical disorder that marijuana helps. And I stopped so I could try my doctors meds. I almost died from the legal meds the doctor gave me (and it just happened to be the same cocktail of drugs that a famous actor died from recently). I have been a good citizen, I don't drink or participate in any illegal activities, so why should I have to hide responsible use of this what I consider to be very helpful to me?

Aoman: These issues should be left up to the states to decide. Let the DEA worry about drugs that are actually harmful to society.

Jennb: Americans have displayed a serious lack of judgment recently. Do you think they can utilize this substance without affecting others? Do we want more people driving while intoxicated? Do we want our children to go to their friend's house, where their friends parents use only a little pot? Should we allow teens to use this substance without consequence? No, No, No, No, No!

Oilengineer: I am completely fine with the idea that individuals can make their own decisions on drugs. However, employers have EVERY right to know about use that may affect your job. You can't drink on the job, you can't smoke in the office, and you can't come to work high.

Employers at many locations require onsite drug testing and random checks which include alcohol. Smoke whatever you want, but if you fail a drug test at work, you're fired. If employers don't want to hire frequent smokers with marijuana in their system, that is entirely their choice. I think you will quickly find that while a few are interested, many individuals really like their salary a lot more than random drug screenings.

If you really want to talk about fair, this is the correct answer.

LindaLou65: I'm not sure how many are aware of the fact that marijuana is used to treat HIV and AIDS patients. I live in a state that illegalizes the use of marijuana for any reason. I lost my husband to AIDS several years ago and remember all the paperwork and hassle it was for him to get marinol (marijuana pill) to ease the nausea and increase his appetite. It took weeks for him to receive it. In the meantime, his physician actually told me to get marijuana from any source I could find and I did.

I do not know if the marijuana actually extended his life. I can say he lived a year longer than was expected. A small price to pay (legally) for more time with my husband and our son.

Bigsilk: The ways that marijuana and hemp can be used are almost too numerous to count and, surely research on this wonder plant isn't done. Every single bit of the plant can be used, from medicinal and recreational uses of the bud, textile and fuel uses from the stems and leaves, and marijuana seed oil is downright flammable (ever hear a seed pop?).

I will admit, however, 100 grams is a lot of weed. I would say that for most recreational smokers, that's at least three or more month's worth of pot. Maybe a hundred grams is a little high (pardon the pun). See an iReporter sing a song about pot laws

TAZER357: I cannot even grasp why the liberal left seem to want the country getting high. Oh wait, on second thought, it makes perfect sense. If the country is high, then they wont really know what the liberal left is really doing to the country. My personal opinion is that if people really want to get high, they will either take their chances with the law, or they can pay for a ticket to Amsterdam

GarthC420: It's interesting when I was a teen I smoked my share of pot and to this day if the opportunity were to make itself readily available I would smoke. I'm not the type that would devote time into finding a dealer or even driving more then 2 minutes to purchase pot. But a year or two ago I had a neighbor that would hook me up every once in a blue moon. Anyway the first time my neighbor sent me home with some weed I sat down with my husband and contemplated the most efficient way to smoke the bud as I had not owned a pipe, water pipe or papers in more then 10 years.

Finally after coming up with a method to consume the green, I offer a hit to my husband. At first he declined, which surprised me considering he is from the Netherlands where it's legal. So after a couple of tear-jerking cough-inducing puffs my husband decides to give it a try. We sit and smoke, and I come to find out that this is the first time my husband has smoked pot. Which really surprised me, but he explained that in the Netherlands marijuana is just another tobacco product, and it doesn't have this big forbidden taboo surrounding it like in the U.S. When the U.S. goes so far as to have news coverage of arrests of individuals for personal use pot gets better publicity then any trendy witty commercial drug dealers could air on TV.

Lascivius: There is no doubt in my mind that marijuana doesn't ruin lives (unless you count the legal problems that it causes in peoples' lives). It is also my opinion, being the child of an abusive alcoholic father, that marijuana use is far less harmful to lives than the use of alcohol can be.

In addition to these thoughts, I am fairly close to a Libertarian ... with regard to civil liberties, so it is my opinion that if someone wishes to do harm to themselves (although it is arguable that marijuana doesn't really harm people), that they should be allowed to, unless that harmful procedure harms others. That is where I draw the line. When your behavior harms others, that is a constitutional impingement and therefore should be illegal.

Denbee: I am a 58-year-old Vietnam veteran. American troops in Vietnam were generally split into two groups, the boozers and the tokers. In short, because of booze I have seen incredible stupidity in people all throughout my life, not only in Vietnam.

In two years of Vietnam I never once saw anyone who was high on pot turn to violence. Never once saw anyone high slurring their speech or being aggressive or vomiting all over themselves and others. The worst I can say about the tokers is that we broke into the mess hall one night and stole a 5 pound carton of strawberry ice cream (shared among 12 of us) and it was wonderful!

So given the violent history of alcohol and the aggressiveness and stupidity it causes I made a choice 40 years ago and it was one of the best choices I have made. I am a responsible husband and father; I am a cardiovascular technologist and have been employed with the same employer for 36 years. I have been married for 26 years. I am a runner and have run for over 20 years. Oh, I have smoked marijuana almost everyday for the last 40 years also. Should we make room in the jail for me?

Sensibleguy: Short and sweet, here's the case: Marijuana is not harmful. It is not physically addictive (like alcohol/cocaine can be), mentally destructive (acid, alcohol), does not carry serious side effects (prescription meds), and does not cause cancer (cigarettes). Hear iReporter discuss marijuana the 'wonder drug'

Marijuana does not make you crazy. It makes you lazy, at worst. I know many who can be industrious after smoking, if they make up their mind to be. And their cognitive abilities are well above their drunken peers.

Hordes of people have tried it, with no ill effect, and decided it is therapeutic for them: it helps relieve pains, increases hunger, relieves depression, or simply helps them laugh. And we all know how therapeutic a good laugh can be.

It's time for US to wise up and contact our representatives to support reasonable, productive, and moral policies ... starting to end the hypocrisy, status quo-ism and ignorance that runs rife in our government.

cweezy172: After growing up completely against any type of drug use, and with the perception that anyone who smokes pot is a "loser pothead," I finally decided to give it a try after reading a report on the pros and cons of pot legalization.

Since then (freshman year of college), it has been a daily staple in my life, I smoke pot every night before I go to sleep, it has reduced my general stress in life, and improved my quality of life. I recently (June) graduated with a 3.8 from a Master's program and got a pretty good job, which I am currently excelling in. When I have work, have to meet someone new, have a major responsibility etc. I don't get high before. I generally wait till my chores for the day are done before I light up (though cleaning high is fun).

I can't recount too many bad effects that it has had on my life, and the benefits far outweigh the few negatives. I find that those who smoke marijuana are generally more open-minded and kinder to others.

Congrats to Barney Frank for having the nerve to stick up for our rights!

Missbosshawg: I don't smoke pot, but have a lot of friends who do. Most who are 40 and 50 years old. I have never seen any of these people violent or commit crimes. They are hard working people who pay their taxes, own their own homes and volunteer in our community. That's more than I can say for some politican!

EyeiandiEye: Doctors use marijuana, as do many celebrities and professional athletes ... It is a great disparity in the American courts to allow this catastrophic aspect of the drug war to go any further. Tolerance of nonviolent citizens who serve and protect the moral integrity of our community must be respected. The schisms and rifts created by unjust policies tear apart the pathways to benevolent cooperation and incite many senseless arguments, ignorant debates, and feelings of frustration.

The hemp industry is a boon to economical equity and balance. It is not wise to take such a valuable resource for granted any longer. We have elected officials to exercise sensible honesty in regards the way our country determines it's collective standard of life. The arrogance of resentment and contextual deception of subversion must be eradicated from the forums our named leaders occupy. This is not a cause for protest or an impetus for any shameful idea to overthrow our established government. This is a cause for patience, honest participation in dialog, and obedience to the transcendent truth of our shared reality. We must not be consumed by paranoia, false information, conspiracy theory, or apathetic stagnation. There is a better way for us to work for to achieve and this is a potential step in the right direction.(-cnn)
 
"Rep. Barney Frank's intern, Avery Morrow, says Frank joked that his bill didn't have a "high chance" of passing."

:)

r
 
Lestat said:
lol dude we have all that now, except on top of it we spend billions to put people in jails and prisons! Ignore the issues and act like they don't exist since its illegal? Legalizing it will raise awareness, its really not all that big of a deal, which is why pretty much anyone can get it.

Funny how the same thing can be said of gun laws. Think about how many poor people get locked-up over silly gun laws! Carrying a modified full-automatic assault rifle with the serial numbers filed off is illegal, but that sure doesn't stop people from having them. Why not just make it legal so we don't spend billions putting people in jails and prisons!
 
I'm still really shocked at the overall selfishness of this thread. Why not give-up drug use for the overall betterment of people? Sure you might not have problems with pot, but other people do.
 
mrplunkey said:
I'm still really shocked at the overall selfishness of this thread. Why not give-up drug use for the overall betterment of people? Sure you might not have problems with pot, but other people do.
that's an easy one...

giving up pot won't help people overall. If I was going to stop supporting things that have a deterimental effect on society I'd start with beef (which I already gave up), gasoline, guns, and then alcohol.

I say even in a utopia, marijuana will have its place. Its positive effects far outweight its negative.
 
Oh an another big point. When I feel I can make a change for the better, I'll do it. But unlike a great many people in this country, I do not try to force that change on everyone (giving up the support of the beef industry is a perfect example). I don't think we should be legislating people's liesure time and personal choices.
 
Lestat said:
that's an easy one...

giving up pot won't help people overall. If I was going to stop supporting things that have a deterimental effect on society I'd start with beef (which I already gave up), gasoline, guns, and then alcohol.

I say even in a utopia, marijuana will have its place. Its positive effects far outweight its negative.

You can't understand the concept of God, yet if you would listen to yourself and other pot addicts talk in such adoring terms about that stupid plant you would realize that you do, in fact, believe in god. Your god just happens to be green, leafy, and packable into small bowls. It's the damnedest thing I've ever seen.
 
mrplunkey said:
I'm still really shocked at the overall selfishness of this thread. Why not give-up drug use for the overall betterment of people? Sure you might not have problems with pot, but other people do.

then by your theory, alcohol should totally be illegal then too, right?

and sleeping pills?

and fast food. cigarrettes. and gambling.
 
jerseyrugger76 said:
You can't understand the concept of God, yet if you would listen to yourself and other pot addicts talk in such adoring terms about that stupid plant you would realize that you do, in fact, believe in god. Your god just happens to be green, leafy, and packable into small bowls. It's the damnedest thing I've ever seen.
lololol

1) I fully understand the concept of a god
2) you apparently do not! I do not think this plant is divine or has a purpose for me or others. I do not try to derive my morals from the plant.

How did you come to think that this plant was anywhere near a "god" to me? What sort of religious dogma comes along with believing in this plant?
 
jnevin said:
I love it when potheads justify their addiction. All of a sudden it's not them with a problem, it's everyone else that drinks, gambles, etc.
I think that drinking and gambling is perfectly benign for the vast majority of people who partake in them.

I think the point is, peopel who gamble and drink still like to limit other people's behavior because they either feel its worse than their's or they just don't enjoy it so why bother protecting someone's ability to partake.

It gets frustrating because there are millions of people that use pot, but I don't see where the social ills come into to play, with something like alcohol or ciggarettes or even gambling the issues are pretty well documented and observable on a daily basis.
 
Lestat said:
lololol

1) I fully understand the concept of a god
2) you apparently do not! I do not think this plant is divine or has a purpose for me or others. I do not try to derive my morals from the plant.

How did you come to think that this plant was anywhere near a "god" to me? What sort of religious dogma comes along with believing in this plant?

I'm obviously being hyperbolic, but no addict of ANY other kind is like a pot addict. Rather than manning up and just saying, "I smoke pot because I like getting fucked up." They come up elaborate justifications for why they're some persecuted minority, the hold festivals honoring the fucking plant (the did when I was in Madison, WI -- it was pathetic -- can you imagine having a crack festival??), they maintain that the world would go to hell in a hand basket if the world didn't have weed, they even try to claim that a perfectly healthy person would be in still better health by smoking it!


Between college, grad school, and you, I've heard every bullshit excuse for getting high imaginable, yet NOT ONE OF YOU has the balls to admit to the fact that, even though you smoke-up daily, you're an addict. And as per the "victimless crime" bullshit, nigga please. I saw some extremely intelligent people smoke their way out of a very elite university. Funny how they later realized their pot habit had gotten them kicked out of school and that, as soon as they dumped that dumb ass drug, their grades went back up.
 
Lestat said:
I think that drinking and gambling is perfectly benign for the vast majority of people who partake in them.

I think the point is, peopel who gamble and drink still like to limit other people's behavior because they either feel its worse than their's or they just don't enjoy it so why bother protecting someone's ability to partake.

It gets frustrating because there are millions of people that use pot, but I don't see where the social ills come into to play, with something like alcohol or ciggarettes or even gambling the issues are pretty well documented and observable on a daily basis.


Like I said.
 
jerseyrugger76 said:
I'm obviously being hyperbolic, but no addict of ANY other kind is like a pot addict. Rather than manning up and just saying, "I smoke pot because I like getting fucked up." They come up elaborate justifications for why they're some persecuted minority, the hold festivals honoring the fucking plant (the did when I was in Madison, WI -- it was pathetic -- can you imagine having a crack festival??), they maintain that the world would go to hell in a hand basket if the world didn't have weed, they even try to claim that a perfectly healthy person would be in still better health by smoking it!


Between college, grad school, and you, I've heard every bullshit excuse for getting high imaginable, yet NOT ONE OF YOU has the balls to admit to the fact that, even though you smoke-up daily, you're an addict. And as per the "victimless crime" bullshit, nigga please. I saw some extremely intelligent people smoke their way out of a very elite university. Funny how they later realized their pot habit had gotten them kicked out of school and that, as soon as they dumped that dumb ass drug, their grades went back up.
Is someone who has a drink every day an addict?

Is someone who eats the same food every day an addict?

Is someone who watches the same TV every night of the week an addict?

Why are you so quick to judge other's behavior? Why is what other people do for pleasure and enjoyment in their liesure time of such a concern to you.

Also, do you know the definition of addiction? I suspect you don't. Its when the human body is dependent and reliant on something to function normally.

Do you know the different between addition and substance abuse? Do you know the distinction between subtance use and substance abuse. Maybe concern yourself with getting familiar with the terms you throw around so casually before concerning yoursel with other people's private behavior.

You seem to be taking a few personal experiences and generalizing them to all. Some people have issues with substances, I've seen it firsthand myself. Some people can't smoke pot because when they do they do not feel like working or doing anything productive. Just as when some people drink alcohol they get very violent, or engage in risky behaviors. No one is denying that these things do exist, there are risks to almost everything in life, pot is no exception.

But when I start to talk about about, its usually about how these risks are minimal, or different with different users, etc.
 
jnevin said:
Like I said.
i guess if I was going to go into smug mode i'd say something like

"I love when people judge others as a way to escape self reflection and critical examination of their own lives..."
 
p0ink said:
obama has already stated he is pro-MM, however, he explicitly said he is not going to spend political capital on making it legal on the federal level.

mccain...not sure what his stance is, either.

don't you worry about having your name in some database, though? honestly.

no because im not paranoid! although with the hash ive been taking down maybe the feds are at the door right now!!!

and i dont care about federal legalization just keep the dea out of ca.
 
mrplunkey said:
Funny how the same thing can be said of gun laws. Think about how many poor people get locked-up over silly gun laws! Carrying a modified full-automatic assault rifle with the serial numbers filed off is illegal, but that sure doesn't stop people from having them. Why not just make it legal so we don't spend billions putting people in jails and prisons!

we have strictest gun laws in cali and we have legalized weed. so thats where our priorities are.

i also think its a birth right to have clean air and drinkable water you probably think thats crazy too.
 
Lestat said:
i guess if I was going to go into smug mode i'd say something like

"I love when people judge others as a way to escape self reflection and critical examination of their own lives..."


Yeah... if.

Anyway. You keep proving my point.
 
jnevin said:
Yeah... if.

Anyway. You keep proving my point.
I suppose it doesn't matter that your point isn't really a point at all, but I've been learning to let people simply believe what they which if its what gets them through life, regardless of the factual nature of it. (you've actually helped me some with that believe it or not!)
 
Lestat said:
I suppose it doesn't matter that your point isn't really a point at all, but I've been learning to let people simply believe what they which if its what gets them through life, regardless of the factual nature of it. (you've actually helped me some with that believe it or not!)


That's really great man.
 
jnevin said:
That's really great man.
I appreciate your contributions to the discussion though, its the variety of opinions and ideas that makes this place so interesting.
 
weed will never be legalized until there is a reliable way to test whether or not someone is under the influence AT THAT MOMENT, and also the degree to which they are high. Too many complicated issues related to work and driving performance otherwise.
 
nimbus said:
weed will never be legalized until there is a reliable way to test whether or not someone is under the influence AT THAT MOMENT, and also the degree to which they are high. Too many complicated issues related to work and driving performance otherwise.
I do see that as the biggest problem.

They have done some driving studies actually and yes, driving is impared by weed, but not nearly to the same degree as with alcohol, but there is still a difference.

how to test to see if someone is high at that moment is VERY difficult.
 
great discussion...i've definetly learned a bit from the different view points in this thread.
jnevin has some serious issues with weed though, which i find humours, on a stairroid based board, for anyone to get so pissy about a soft drug like weed.
jnev, how do you live with yourself on sauce? seems like you'd be overwhelmed with guilt and shame
 
Bino said:
great discussion...i've definetly learned a bit from the different view points in this thread.
jnevin has some serious issues with weed though, which i find humours, on a stairroid based board, for anyone to get so pissy about a soft drug like weed.
jnev, how do you live with yourself on sauce? seems like you'd be overwhelmed with guilt and shame

these posts just aren't the same without the phrase "shooting up bathtub test" :(
 
mrplunkey said:
I'm still really shocked at the overall selfishness of this thread. Why not give-up drug use for the overall betterment of people? Sure you might not have problems with pot, but other people do.
the obivous counter is why don't you give up test/gh?
sure you might not have problems, but others definetly do.
 
Bino said:
great discussion...i've definetly learned a bit from the different view points in this thread.
jnevin has some serious issues with weed though, which i find humours, on a stairroid based board, for anyone to get so pissy about a soft drug like weed.
jnev, how do you live with yourself on sauce? seems like you'd be overwhelmed with guilt and shame


I don't really have issues with weed. Moreso with weedheads that seem to think that just because they happen to be hooked on it and it's not something like heroin, it should be legal and it's completely harmless.

Every argument comes back to "Well, they can drink, gamble, smoke, etc. Why can't I do illegal drugs?" Because it's still illegal. I wouldn't cry if I got caught with the joose and use the argument that it doesn't hurt anyone else.

And yeah guy. I have a stellar amount of self respect.
 
jerseyrugger76 said:
I'm obviously being hyperbolic, but no addict of ANY other kind is like a pot addict. Rather than manning up and just saying, "I smoke pot because I like getting fucked up." They come up elaborate justifications for why they're some persecuted minority, the hold festivals honoring the fucking plant (the did when I was in Madison, WI -- it was pathetic -- can you imagine having a crack festival??), they maintain that the world would go to hell in a hand basket if the world didn't have weed, they even try to claim that a perfectly healthy person would be in still better health by smoking it!

Between college, grad school, and you, I've heard every bullshit excuse for getting high imaginable, yet NOT ONE OF YOU has the balls to admit to the fact that, even though you smoke-up daily, you're an addict. And as per the "victimless crime" bullshit, nigga please. I saw some extremely intelligent people smoke their way out of a very elite university. Funny how they later realized their pot habit had gotten them kicked out of school and that, as soon as they dumped that dumb ass drug, their grades went back up.
lol joosers make the exact type of arguments!
i've seen them here time and time again, even the fabled march on washington lollolol seriously i've heard that quite a few times here.
the lengths i've witnessed joosers go to justify their habits mirrors would you just said
 
jnevin said:
I don't really have issues with weed. Moreso with weedheads that seem to think that just because they happen to be hooked on it and it's not something like heroin, it should be legal and it's completely harmless.

Every argument comes back to "Well, they can drink, gamble, smoke, etc. Why can't I do illegal drugs?" Because it's still illegal. I wouldn't cry if I got caught with the joose and use the argument that it doesn't hurt anyone else.

And yeah guy. I have a stellar amount of self respect.
do you have a problem with joosers who talk about how harmless joose is, and since it's not like herion, it should be legal?
 
nimbus said:
these posts just aren't the same without the phrase "shooting up bathtub test" :(
in that vein, teen joosers are now getting mentor status at EF
wtf?
teen joosers at one time weren't allowed to post here...now they are lauded as e-heros, disgusting imo
 
Bino said:
do you have a problem with joosers who talk about how harmless joose is, and since it's not like herion, it should be legal?


Of course I do. But that's not the point of this thread.
 
i quit blazing with little problem
gone abou 6-7 months now, and i don't feel any better/smarter
either i fuct my brain permanatly, or there was never any damage to begin with
 
jnevin said:
Of course I do. But that's not the point of this thread.
honestly i never see you post that opinion in the "jooser freedom" type of threads, only in weed threads
which leads me to think you have some inherent dislike of weed
 
Bino said:
i quit blazing with little problem
gone abou 6-7 months now, and i don't feel any better/smarter
either i fuct my brain permanatly, or there was never any damage to begin with
Same here, i went through phases of liking weed, not liking it, etc. I've found that generally speaking it acts as more of an enhaner on my life than a detractor. Yes, its illegal, but I strongly disagree with that. When they prohibited alcohol during prohibition many people aquired it illegally, I don't view them as criminals although technically they were, they were more oppressed by a government that, while good intentioned, was really meddling with people's personal freedom to a degree we hadn't seen before.

Some states still had anti sodomy laws on the books! most agree those are antiquated and unjust, I would say the same for the laws concerning marijuana posession and usage. By making those arguments, I don't absolve all personal responsiblity or hide the fact that there can be a downside for some, that isn't the point at all. The point is, the laws are unjust and unfair, and we can use the legislation (or lack of) in regards to other behaviors and substances as an example.
 
This thread has got me thinking... I don't use juice now and dont plan on ever using it in the future (dabbled in the past), but I wouldn't try to restrict others from using it. I know a lot of people that have used or use it currently, most without issue, but the fact is, some kids do abuse it, some adults even fuck themselves up bad. Does this mean the substance itself is the problem?

Im actually ok with recreational coke usage or opiate usage. I've had friends abuse both and really fuck themselves up, but MOST people i know, including myself, who have used those things have done so without issue.

I do not ever want to use Xtasy, never have, never will, but again, I'm not going to talk down to someone who pops one every weekend at a rave. They could be doing some long term damage to their brain chemistry, but why the fuck is that any of my business?
 
Bino said:
lol joosers make the exact type of arguments!
i've seen them here time and time again, even the fabled march on washington lollolol seriously i've heard that quite a few times here.
the lengths i've witnessed joosers go to justify their habits mirrors would you just said

I never said jewsers were an exception, did I?
 
jnevin said:
Move to Amsterdam.
California is close enough for my liking for now. I don't feel persecuted really for my drug use, but I do know that many other people are, so I'd love to see legislation that puts an end to that.
 
Lestat said:
California is close enough for my liking for now. I don't feel persecuted really for my drug use, but I do know that many other people are, so I'd love to see legislation that puts an end to that.


lmao dude

People are persecuted for knowingly breaking the law?
 
Lestat said:
absolutely


Sweet. So people making meth in houses with children around are persecuted. People robbing people for money to get high are persecuted. People killing each other for drugs, drug money, or drug turf are persecuted?

Cool man.
 
jnevin said:
The guys that killed the dumb bitch this thread is about are jesus like.
the thread title is totally misleading
the matter has zero relation to weed, it's about cola and guns
 
Bino said:
the thread title is totally misleading
the matter has zero relation to weed, it's about cola and guns


Yeah I know. But Lestat just said that all drug users are persecuted. I'd imagine that would also apply to the fine, upstanding folks that provide the drugs, since without one you won't have the other.
 
jerseyrugger76 said:
I never said jewsers were an exception, did I?
whenever i see a legalize joos thread, i never see the same amount of indignation as i do with weed
either way, i'm proly better off without smoking out
 
Lestat said:
Is someone who has a drink every day an addict?

Is someone who eats the same food every day an addict?

Is someone who watches the same TV every night of the week an addict?

Why are you so quick to judge other's behavior? Why is what other people do for pleasure and enjoyment in their liesure time of such a concern to you.

Also, do you know the definition of addiction? I suspect you don't. Its when the human body is dependent and reliant on something to function normally.

Do you know the different between addition and substance abuse? Do you know the distinction between subtance use and substance abuse. Maybe concern yourself with getting familiar with the terms you throw around so casually before concerning yoursel with other people's private behavior.

You seem to be taking a few personal experiences and generalizing them to all. Some people have issues with substances, I've seen it firsthand myself. Some people can't smoke pot because when they do they do not feel like working or doing anything productive. Just as when some people drink alcohol they get very violent, or engage in risky behaviors. No one is denying that these things do exist, there are risks to almost everything in life, pot is no exception.

But when I start to talk about about, its usually about how these risks are minimal, or different with different users, etc.

Food is necessary to sustain life.

Watching TV doesn't incapacitate you.

These are false analogies.

Also, there are TWO types of addiction. Physical AND psychological. You described physical addiction. If you read anything other than High Times, you'd know that psychological addiction, the perceived need for a substance, is much more difficult to surmount. In fact, psychological dependency is why it's so fucking hard to quit smoking cigarettes! Once again, if you had the IQ of a toaster, you'd know that your body's dependence on a substance as vile and addictive as nicotine is COMPLETELY over after three, count 'em 3 days.

I LOL at your claim about this being a private behavior. Liberal extremists do this all of the time. You've used this ENTIRE thread to showcase your "personal" behavior. Funny thing is, this is a PUBLIC forum. If you don't want your "private" habits criticized, STFU and keep them to yourself.

Now, as per the rest of your post, I'm not judging your behavior. I am simply refusing to accommodate your whiny ass. You want to smoke up, fine. I'm not going to stop you and, frankly, I don't care. But I will not use my tax dollars to amend laws and expand regulatory agencies to just to police your juvenile habit. End of story.

I don't go around asking people to repeal anti-steroid laws, absinthe laws, or any restrictions on anything else I might enjoy. Why? Because it's degrading. If you took 2 minutes to look at yourself and the cause you've chosen to champion I'm sure that you, and most of the state of California, would be rather embarrassed. Having a vice does not entitle you to special treatment.
 
jnevin said:
Sweet. So people making meth in houses with children around are persecuted. People robbing people for money to get high are persecuted. People killing each other for drugs, drug money, or drug turf are persecuted?

Cool man.
I am ok with persecuting people who rob others or endanger children.
 
this thread has totally make me rethink my stance on tweed legilization
interesting
JR show your teets
 
jnevin said:
Yeah I know. But Lestat just said that all drug users are persecuted. I'd imagine that would also apply to the fine, upstanding folks that provide the drugs, since without one you won't have the other.
i don't remember saying that, can you point me to where I did? all drug users are persecuted? some deserve to be in prison, for example, if you stole to get money to buy drugs....
 
jerseyrugger76 said:
Food is necessary to sustain life.

Watching TV doesn't incapacitate you.

These are false analogies.

Also, there are TWO types of addiction. Physical AND psychological. You described physical addiction. If you read anything other than High Times, you'd know that psychological addiction, the perceived need for a substance, is much more difficult to surmount. In fact, psychological dependency is why it's so fucking hard to quit smoking cigarettes! Once again, if you had the IQ of a toaster, you'd know that your body's dependence on a substance as vile and addictive as nicotine is COMPLETELY over after three, count 'em 3 days.

I LOL at your claim about this being a private behavior. Liberal extremists do this all of the time. You've used this ENTIRE thread to showcase your "personal" behavior. Funny thing is, this is a PUBLIC forum. If you don't want your "private" habits criticized, STFU and keep them to yourself.

Now, as per the rest of your post, I'm not judging your behavior. I am simply refusing to accommodate your whiny ass. You want to smoke up, fine. I'm not going to stop you and, frankly, I don't care. But I will not use my tax dollars to amend laws and expand regulatory agencies to just to police your juvenile habit. End of story.

I don't go around asking people to repeal anti-steroid laws, absinthe laws, or any restrictions on anything else I might enjoy. Why? Because it's degrading. If you took 2 minutes to look at yourself and the cause you've chosen to champion I'm sure that you, and most of the state of California, would be rather embarrassed. Having a vice does not entitle you to special treatment.
you are ok with using your tax dollars to police people's private behavior?

I've seen TV, and even moreso, VIDEO GAMES incapacitate people. I've seen porn and the internet in general do the same too. Weed doesn't incapaciate people, it does to some, sure, but for others it actually enables them (I'd point to many artists for empiracal evidence of such).
 
Lestat said:
California is close enough for my liking for now. I don't feel persecuted really for my drug use, but I do know that many other people are, so I'd love to see legislation that puts an end to that.


Drug users are persecuted?
 
Lestat said:
you are ok with using your tax dollars to police people's private behavior?

I've seen TV, and even moreso, VIDEO GAMES incapacitate people. I've seen porn and the internet in general do the same too. Weed doesn't incapaciate people, it does to some, sure, but for others it actually enables them (I'd point to many artists for empiracal evidence of such).


You're right. A depressant narcotic doesn't pack nearly the wallop that a heated game of tetris does.
 
Lestat said:
you are ok with using your tax dollars to police people's private behavior?

I've seen TV, and even moreso, VIDEO GAMES incapacitate people. I've seen porn and the internet in general do the same too. Weed doesn't incapaciate people, it does to some, sure, but for others it actually enables them (I'd point to many artists for empiracal evidence of such).
i think the issue is that does private behaviour effect society as a whole.
one could argue that cooking meth is a private behaviour, but obviously the effects on soceity are huggge
 
Bino said:
this thread has totally make me rethink my stance on tweed legilization
interesting
JR show your teets

Don't wait by the screen ya dirty bastard.
:jenscat
 
Lestat said:
you are ok with using your tax dollars to police people's private behavior?

I've seen TV, and even moreso, VIDEO GAMES incapacitate people. I've seen porn and the internet in general do the same too. Weed doesn't incapaciate people, it does to some, sure, but for others it actually enables them (I'd point to many artists for empiracal evidence of such).

Dude, if you're going to argue that smoking up makes people in general more productive than when they are sober, I'm willing to bet you're high right now.
 
Lestat said:
you are ok with using your tax dollars to police people's private behavior?

I've seen TV, and even moreso, VIDEO GAMES incapacitate people. I've seen porn and the internet in general do the same too. Weed doesn't incapaciate people, it does to some, sure, but for others it actually enables them (I'd point to many artists for empiracal evidence of such).

And I hate to tell you this, genius, but yeah, I am okay with that and so are a lot of other people. The distribution of kiddie porn is a private behavior and I'm perfectly happy paying for those mother fuckers being put under the jail.
 
Lestat said:
you are ok with using your tax dollars to police people's private behavior?

I've seen TV, and even moreso, VIDEO GAMES incapacitate people. I've seen porn and the internet in general do the same too. Weed doesn't incapaciate people, it does to some, sure, but for others it actually enables them (I'd point to many artists for empiracal evidence of such).


This also from the guy that's spammed the board with Rock Band pics.
 
jnevin said:
So, you think that it's only ok to harrass these people?
I'm not sure if harass is the right word but I think I agree with your meaning of it.

I think that behavior that has a significant negative effect on others should be controlled or regulated. Now I realize that this is wholly subjective, and that is really the issue here and why its difficult to "argue" if you switch back from the legalization issue to "is it bad for you issue" They are seemingly tied because why would you make something illegal if it wasn't bad, right? Well the fact is, many things are bad, for the individual, or some individuals, and this can have a negative effect on others, so we all have to determine what the tolerance for that was.

If I was living in a country like Dubai that had laws on the books prohibiting being intoxicated, I'd have a tougher time arguing for the legalization of weed. This is where the subjectivity really comes into play.

I understand that our country is like most, where if 51% of people say something is bad, it can be made illegal and persecuted. Is this right? I don't know! Morals and ethics are only good within context and a certain frame of time. What was legal for one generation could be illegal for the next, or the other way around. Does this mean that the laws of the previous years were flawed? Does it mean that the newer laws are better? I believe this is fully dependent on the attitudes, wants, and needs of the people at the time.

I can empathize with all sides of the debate. I always use prohibition as an example. I can see why those laws were enacted. I believe the intentions were good. People felt that the use of alcohol was a MAJOR source of social ills. The literature on it is laughable now, but it really hit home for many people then.

Same thing with sodomy laws. Why not pass them? It protects people from getting their assholes blown out and future incontenance. Seems to be a good thing right, who wants a stretched out asshole?

But the point is, if someone wants to drink themselves silly and be unproductive, or get their asshole reamed till it bleeds, why is that my business, why should I or anyone else be able to tell those people what they can and can't do?
 
Lestat said:
I'm not sure if harass is the right word but I think I agree with your meaning of it.

I think that behavior that has a significant negative effect on others should be controlled or regulated. Now I realize that this is wholly subjective, and that is really the issue here and why its difficult to "argue" if you switch back from the legalization issue to "is it bad for you issue" They are seemingly tied because why would you make something illegal if it wasn't bad, right? Well the fact is, many things are bad, for the individual, or some individuals, and this can have a negative effect on others, so we all have to determine what the tolerance for that was.

If I was living in a country like Dubai that had laws on the books prohibiting being intoxicated, I'd have a tougher time arguing for the legalization of weed. This is where the subjectivity really comes into play.

I understand that our country is like most, where if 51% of people say something is bad, it can be made illegal and persecuted. Is this right? I don't know! Morals and ethics are only good within context and a certain frame of time. What was legal for one generation could be illegal for the next, or the other way around. Does this mean that the laws of the previous years were flawed? Does it mean that the newer laws are better? I believe this is fully dependent on the attitudes, wants, and needs of the people at the time.

I can empathize with all sides of the debate. I always use prohibition as an example. I can see why those laws were enacted. I believe the intentions were good. People felt that the use of alcohol was a MAJOR source of social ills. The literature on it is laughable now, but it really hit home for many people then.

Same thing with sodomy laws. Why not pass them? It protects people from getting their assholes blown out and future incontenance. Seems to be a good thing right, who wants a stretched out asshole?

But the point is, if someone wants to drink themselves silly and be unproductive, or get their asshole reamed till it bleeds, why is that my business, why should I or anyone else be able to tell those people what they can and can't do?


per·se·cute (pûrs-kyt)
tr.v. per·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing, per·se·cutes
1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.
 
jerseyrugger76 said:
And I hate to tell you this, genius, but yeah, I am okay with that and so are a lot of other people. The distribution of kiddie porn is a private behavior and I'm perfectly happy paying for those mother fuckers being put under the jail.
great point!

Why are you against kiddie porn? I can tell you why I am.

It victimizes CHILDREN. They are not old enough to consent to doing porn, its damaging and a form of abuse.

But back to your original point, you are unwilling to spend tax money on what exactly? billions are spent on the incarceration of drug offenders, I thought you said you weren't willing to spend tax dollars on the issue?
 
Lestat said:
I've seen TV, and even moreso, VIDEO GAMES incapacitate people. I've seen porn and the internet in general do the same too.

Let's break down the argument here.

We have things in this society that do bad things to people: incapacitate them, make them less productive, estrange them from one another. If we consider the case of DUI, these other perfectly legal things could be DEADLY.

THIS is your argument FOR the legalization of POT???? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Why in God's name would any society of sane people EVER agree to legalizing ANYTHING with the same deleterious effects as all of the other aforementioned substances. Are things not bad enough???
 
jnevin said:
per·se·cute (pûrs-kyt)
tr.v. per·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing, per·se·cutes
1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.
thanks for the valuable viewpoint!
 
Lestat said:
great point!

Why are you against kiddie porn? I can tell you why I am.

It victimizes CHILDREN. They are not old enough to consent to doing porn, its damaging and a form of abuse.

But back to your original point, you are unwilling to spend tax money on what exactly? billions are spent on the incarceration of drug offenders, I thought you said you weren't willing to spend tax dollars on the issue?

On no, my dear, I'm unwilling to subsidize the amendment process and the drafting of new FDA standards for the production and distribution of little pot cigarettes just to make a small band of hippies happy.
 
jerseyrugger76 said:
Let's break down the argument here.

We have things in this society that do bad things to people: incapacitate them, make them less productive, estrange them from one another. If we consider the case of DUI, these other perfectly legal things could be DEADLY.

THIS is your argument FOR the legalization of POT???? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Why in God's name would any society of sane people EVER agree to legalizing ANYTHING with the same deleterious effects as all of the other aforementioned substances. Are things not bad enough???
that's an easy one.

Because if everything that could be detrimental to society, or even a single individual was illegal, you wouldn't be able to do any of the following:

drive a car
eat anything with saturated fat
drink alcohol
have sex
post on the internet (carpal tunnel is a bitch)
cough or sneeze in public
etc etc.

Is that the kind of place you wish to live in? We all make personal choices as to risk/reward. I'd say we all engage in some sort of risky behavior (some more than some). Those are choices I choose to leave to the individual as long as it can stay more or less confined to the invidual.

Alcohol users put non alcohol users at risk every single day. I agree with the legislation and laws we have around it. We persecute drunk drivers vehemently. In California its a FELONY to drive intoxicated, the legal limits are VERY low, and your 2nd offense is gonna get you mandatory jail time! I have no problem whatsoever with this because driving drunk is not a simple personal choice, its a choice to put other's in harms way.

We don't attack the alcohol use, you can drink in the privacy of your own home as much as you want, but we attack the negative effects and behaviors that could result from it. Its not illegal to be an alcoholic, and we'll still even treat you for liver disease and the like that in some cases cost other people indirectly.
 
my main problem with the WOD is the heavy handed tactics police departments across the country are using.

i get really sick and tired of reading about 'no-knock' warrants being executed across the country where some, if not all, the people/animals in the house get murdered.

the police departments are even starting to do no-knock warrants, at night, wearing plain clothes. can you not see how that is a recipe for disaster?

the police can 'accidentally' kill someone and it will be justified as 'having to make a life-or-death decision in a split second. ok, but what happens if joe sixpack american did the same thing and killed a plain clothes police officer banging his door down at 4am? he will be facing capital muder.

i'm not pro-drug...i am pro-constitution.
 
jerseyrugger76 said:
On no, my dear, I'm unwilling to subsidize the amendment process and the drafting of new FDA standards for the production and distribution of little pot cigarettes just to make a small band of hippies happy.
That doesn't make sense to me. You don't want to pay for an amendment process (keep in mind, we're not paying the legislature overtime to vote on this bill) that would ultimately save billions of dollars in law enforcement costs? Why not?
 
Lestat said:
that's an easy one.

Because if everything that could be detrimental to society, or even a single individual was illegal, you wouldn't be able to do any of the following:

drive a car
eat anything with saturated fat
drink alcohol
have sex
post on the internet (carpal tunnel is a bitch)
cough or sneeze in public
etc etc.

Is that the kind of place you wish to live in? We all make personal choices as to risk/reward. I'd say we all engage in some sort of risky behavior (some more than some). Those are choices I choose to leave to the individual as long as it can stay more or less confined to the invidual.

Alcohol users put non alcohol users at risk every single day. I agree with the legislation and laws we have around it. We persecute drunk drivers vehemently. In California its a FELONY to drive intoxicated, the legal limits are VERY low, and your 2nd offense is gonna get you mandatory jail time! I have no problem whatsoever with this because driving drunk is not a simple personal choice, its a choice to put other's in harms way.

We don't attack the alcohol use, you can drink in the privacy of your own home as much as you want, but we attack the negative effects and behaviors that could result from it. Its not illegal to be an alcoholic, and we'll still even treat you for liver disease and the like that in some cases cost other people indirectly.

Ok, you should NEVER use California as an example of why it's bad to get pinched for DUI -- witness the stiff sentences faced by Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Richie.

And, you're right, we don't attack people for doing shit in the privacy of their own homes, which is why the police haven't busted in of your burnt out ass yet. So, as long as you aren't running drugs, Lestat, you'll likely be ok.
 
Thanks JR, Jnev, and bino for the robust debate!

This is something I constantlly struggle with. One side of me thinks, lets outlaw anything that negatively affects society as a whole. Why do I think this? Because I do favor taxes and social programs that may cost certain people on an individual basis, but ultimately are for the great good and help the majority.

So how do I reconcile that viewpoint with the fact that I think we should allow people personal freedoms, even if they could be detrimental to themselves, which in turn could be detrimental to society (like I always say, we don't exist in a vaccum).

I would imagine I'd struggle with this either way, lets say I was in favor of abolishing all social ills, alcohol, ciggs, juice, weed, all rec drugs. Any lets say my argument was that it would increase overall productivity and prosperity for the entire nation. Seems rational right.

The part that becomes subjective an unquantifiable for me is the personal freedom aspect. Should people be allowed to do things that could harm them? That could make them less productive? That could in generall cause the quality of life for others to go down.

Somewhere a subjective line has to be drawn, it seems like ever individual does this for themselves, and together as a society we figure out where that is. It also seems to change very frequently. So what am I doing when I argue my case? I'm stating where I draw my personal lines and where I would want those lines to be drawn as a nation.

I tend to believe that we should allow people as much personal freedom as possible in so much as it doesn't negatively affect others. This is far easier said than done because in many cases its near impossible to quantify all of the ramifications of some behaviors.


At the end of the day, I'd love sit around in person, the 4 of us, and pass the peace pipe!
 
jerseyrugger76 said:
Ok, you should NEVER use California as an example of why it's bad to get pinched for DUI -- witness the stiff sentences faced by Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Richie.

And, you're right, we don't attack people for doing shit in the privacy of their own homes, which is why the police haven't busted in of your burnt out ass yet. So, as long as you aren't running drugs, Lestat, you'll likely be ok.
those celeb cases are bullshit. I know a dozen people or more who have gotten a DUI, a couple of them TWICE, and they have paid dearly. I have no sympathy either, the empiracle evidence shows that driving while drunk leads to death.. not all of the time, not even most of the time, but its too great of a risk.
 
just another thought. I am pretty pro gun control.... my rational is that if less people had guns, less people would die from them.

BUT, along the same vein, if the evidence showed that the only people that were killed by guns we gun owners, I wouldn't be so quick to control their ownership.
 
jerseyrugger76 said:
You just stirring up shit now. Slow day in tech land?
actually im behind on a lot of shit but burnt out, lots of late night and early morning conference calls to India this week. I'm ready to smoke a bowl.
 
jnevin said:
I can't smoke anything. I have asthma. I'll pop a couple of somas and chill instead.
There is some evidence that marijuana relaxes the bronchial passageways.

I was a terrible asthmatic as a child. I had to bring a pulmoaide machine to school and use it two times per day (and twice at home in the morning and evening). I tried everything, but I suffered from asthma to the point that I had to limit my physical activity. They also put me on allergy shots 2x per week (4 total shots each time) which as a kid was the worst.

As an adult I tried a few treatments, but I as pretty much dependent on my quick acting albuterol inhaler. I used to carry one on my person at ALL times because I never knew when I would tighten up and as I am sure you know that feeling is close to unbearable and without meds doesn't go away on its own in a timely manner.

Well now, at 31, I keep an inhaler in my gym back, but I don't always use it proactively. I rarely have to use my inhaler except when exercising strenuously. This is so much different than before or any other period in my life.

Now I am not going to draw direct causation, i do know that sometimes childhood asthmatics get far better in adulthood, BUT I do smoke more now than I ever did. I try to use a vaporizer whenever possible as to not inhale tar, but I have had times where my lungs will tighten up and instead of going for the inhaler, I go for the bong, and the effect is very similar, a near instantaneous relief of the tightness, I feel like I can get more air.

Now if its the particule matter that causes your asthma, then yeah, smoking will only aggravate it, but you could try a non smoked form of marijuana or possible the vaporizor.
 
Lestat said:
There is some evidence that marijuana relaxes the bronchial passageways.

I was a terrible asthmatic as a child. I had to bring a pulmoaide machine to school and use it two times per day (and twice at home in the morning and evening). I tried everything, but I suffered from asthma to the point that I had to limit my physical activity. They also put me on allergy shots 2x per week (4 total shots each time) which as a kid was the worst.

As an adult I tried a few treatments, but I as pretty much dependent on my quick acting albuterol inhaler. I used to carry one on my person at ALL times because I never knew when I would tighten up and as I am sure you know that feeling is close to unbearable and without meds doesn't go away on its own in a timely manner.

Well now, at 31, I keep an inhaler in my gym back, but I don't always use it proactively. I rarely have to use my inhaler except when exercising strenuously. This is so much different than before or any other period in my life.

Now I am not going to draw direct causation, i do know that sometimes childhood asthmatics get far better in adulthood, BUT I do smoke more now than I ever did. I try to use a vaporizer whenever possible as to not inhale tar, but I have had times where my lungs will tighten up and instead of going for the inhaler, I go for the bong, and the effect is very similar, a near instantaneous relief of the tightness, I feel like I can get more air.

Now if its the particule matter that causes your asthma, then yeah, smoking will only aggravate it, but you could try a non smoked form of marijuana or possible the vaporizor.


I think it's when it's ingested instead of smoked is when that happens.
 
Lestat said:
its when what happens?


The passage ways are relaxed. I don't see how inflaming the tissue in the lungs, which is what would happen if smoke was inhaled, could possibly relax anything.
 
Medical Fact


Marijuana Helps Asthma

The Claim:
Its impossible to help someone who is having a asthma attack with marijuana smoke, not to mention helping them breathe easier

The Facts:
More than 15 million Americans are affected by asthma. Smoking cannabis (The "raw drug" as the AMA called it) would be beneficial for 80% of them and add 30-60 million person-years in the aggregate of extended life to current asthmatics over presently legal toxic medicines such as the Theophylline prescribed to children.

"Taking a hit of marijuana has been known to stop a full blown asthma attack." Personal communication with Dr. Donald Tashkin, December 12, 1989 and December 1, 1997. The use of cannabis for asthmatics goes back thousands of years in literature. American doctors of the last century wrote glowing reports in medical papers that asthma sufferers of the world would "bless" Indian hemp (cannabis) all their lives.

The inhalation of cannabis smoke causes bronchial dilation lasting up to one hour. The bronchodilator effect of orally injested THC lasts up to six hours, but is not so powerful as smoking cannabis. THC aerosols are not as effective as smoking cannabis because aerosolized THC has an irritating effect on the air passages.

THC in a micoaerosol has proved to be up to 60 percent effective as a bronchodilator, with minimal mental effects and no parasympathetic effects. Other research demonstrates that THC defends against the encroachment of emphysema and suppresses coughing. Cannabis has been used sucessfully in the treatment of whooping cough.

Today, of the 16 million American asthma sufferers, only those living in California, Arizona and Nevada, with a doctor's recommendation can legally grow and use cannabis medicines, even though it is generally the most effective treatment for asthma.
 
Effects of Smoked Marijuana in
Experimentally Induced Asthma1, 2



DONALD P. TASHKIN, BERTRAND J. SHAPIRO, Y. ENOCH LEE,
and CHARLES E. HARPER



SUMMARY

After experimental induction of acute bronchospasm in 8 subjects with clinically stable bronchial asthma, effects of 500 mg of smoked marijuana (2.0 per cent Delta 9-tetrahydrodrocannabinol) on specific airway conductance and thoracic gas volume were compared with those of 500 mg of smoked placebo marijuana (0.0 per cent Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol), 0.25 ml of aerosolized saline, and 0.25 ml of aerosolized isoproterenol (1,250 ug). Bronchospasm was induced on 4 separate occasions, by inhalation of methacholine and, on four other occasions, by exercise on a bicycle ergometer or treadmill. Methacholine and exercise caused average decreases in specific airway conductance of 40 to 55 per cent and 30 to 39 per cent, respectively, and average increases in thoracic gas volume of 35 to 43 per cent and 25 to 35 per cent, respectively. After methacholine-induced bronchospasm, placebo marijuana and saline inhalation produced minimal changes in speci! fic airway conductance and thoracic gas volume, whereas 2.0 per cent marijuana and isoproterenol each caused a prompt correction of the bronchospasm and associated hyperinflation. After exercise-induced bronchospasm, placebo marijuana and saline were followed by gradual recovery during 30 to 60 min, whereas 2.0 per cent marijuana and isoproterenol caused an immediate reversal of exercise-induced asthma and hyperinflation.
 
Smoking Marijuana...and Asthma?
I have never been a marijuana smoker till the last few weeks.During that time i have noticed that my asthma just dissappears and doesnt bother me at all...before the last few weeks my asthma would bug me several times a day and have to use and asthma inhaler...but since i smoked mary jane my asthma has dissappeared...has anyone else ever experienced this or read any possible pages on the net about it....thanks
 
jnevin said:
That's strange. I had to use my inhaler all the time when I smoked weed.

I always have mine handy and will continue to do so. Dying of an asthma attack induced by a bong hit seems like a really lame ass way to go. Especially if they find a copy of one of Lestat's posts lying next to your lifeless corpse.
 
Back in the mid-1970s US professor Donald P Taskin found that "recent studies demonstrated significant, acute bronchodilation in healthy young men after they smoked marijuana".
 
jerseyrugger76 said:
I always have mine handy and will continue to do so. Dying of an asthma attack induced by a bong hit seems like a really lame ass way to go. Especially if they find a copy of one of Lestat's posts lying next to your lifeless corpse.
hahahahahhaahahhaahahh
 
jerseyrugger76 said:
I always have mine handy and will continue to do so. Dying of an asthma attack induced by a bong hit seems like a really lame ass way to go. Especially if they find a copy of one of Lestat's posts lying next to your lifeless corpse.


I use advair now and have only had to use my albuterol a handful of times since getting on it. Being around smoke of any kind makes my chest feel tight.
 
jnevin said:
That's strange. I had to use my inhaler all the time when I smoked weed.
same here. I think it was because i smoked infrequently, my lungs reacted more strongly to the particulates and what not. now I don't even cough after a huge rip (not saying that is a good thing, lungs probably coated in tar, but at least I don't wheeze!)
 
Top Bottom