Drugs Are Bad, M'Kay?

[Elenai]

You know what wine was back in the days Jesus lived? It was what we now call lemonade. Seriously.

I'm not even going to touch how historically inaccurate that statement was.

Also, you can eat fish and still be a vegetarian.

I'm not even going to touch how definitionally inaccurate that was. Also: Lamb.

Since I don't want this to turn into another religious debate I won't reply in this thread.

Your choice, glad you made it.

Back on topic: Marijuana is not as dangerous as alcohol. If you smoke too much you'll fall asleep. If you drink too much alcohol, however, you can die. Marijuana in small dosages will make you more careful, alcohol in small dosages will make you do stupid stuff.

No....Alcohol in small dosages will not make you do stupid stuff...It depends specifically on your tolerance level, and how much it takes you to get drunk/merry.

Otherwise, it is just a drink.

Too much coffee can make you do stupid stuff.

You cannot compare alcohol to weed, it is like comparing orange juice to eating dirt.

Again I bring up the two extremes that are constantly presented in this argument:

"Water is fine, lets bottle urine // Food makes you fat/kills more people than weed, lets ban food"

 

[Squiggy]

Noone's got killed by using weed so far

 

[The Reborn Devil]

I'm not even going to touch how historically inaccurate that statement was.



I'm not even going to touch how definitionally inaccurate that was. Also: Lamb.

I'm not going to say my opinion on your reply. If you wish to hear it then ask through VM or PM

No....Alcohol in small dosages will not make you do stupid stuff...It depends specifically on your tolerance level, and how much it takes you to get drunk/merry.

Let me rephrase: Small dosages as in what makes you a little bit drunk.

Too much coffee can make you do stupid stuff.

You don't know how wrong you are. My father drinks A LOT, and when I say A LOT I mean A LOT, of coffee. He's not doing stupid stuff, quite the contrary.

You cannot compare alcohol to weed

Yes I can. Alcohol is a drug just like weed, but alcohol is legal.

Again I bring up the two extremes that are constantly presented in this argument:

"Water is fine, lets bottle urine // Food makes you fat/kills more people than weed, lets ban food"

It's nothing wrong in drinking urine. A kid survived on his own urine when he was trapped in a well. Alcohol kills more people than food, and food is completely and utterly necessary for our survival, so it sustains more life than it takes. I facepalm at your futile attempt of trying to make an argument for banning food.


Edit: Squiggy is correct.

 

[Fussiler1]

I didn't say you didn't know YOUR GOD, I said the Bible has been changed and/or translated incorrectly over the years. A good example is the story about Jesus turning water into wine. You know what wine was back in the days Jesus lived? It was what we now call lemonade. Seriously.

I'm not sure, but that was only with the beer.
And also, I thought it was in the Medieval Ages since then all the water was kinda poisonous and filled with urine?

 

[TwistedImage]

Noone's got killed by using weed so far

Shitloads of people have died, by extension of weed, to weed extremism and addiction.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

No one has died by marijuana alone.

 

[Elenai]

You don't know how wrong you are. My father drinks A LOT, and when I say A LOT I mean A LOT, of coffee. He's not doing stupid stuff, quite the contrary.

His tolerance is high.

Give a 4 year old child a large sized starbucks...see what happens.

Yes I can. Alcohol is a drug just like weed, but alcohol is legal.

By that logic, we can compare Tylenol to Claritin, or the epee-pen, they are both drugs afterall.

It's nothing wrong in drinking urine. A kid survived on his own urine when he was trapped in a well. Alcohol kills more people than food, and food is completely and utterly necessary for our survival, so it sustains more life than it takes. I facepalm at your futile attempt of trying to make an argument for banning food.

Wow...You've rested my case by showing an exact example of the extremes I was talking about. As well an exceptional ability to miss the point.

No one has died by marijuana alone.

No one has died by guns alone through that logic, as it requires someone to have handled it, or enacted in activating the device to kill. You are essentially proposing that just because it takes a noun to use a tool to kill someone, or something, or that a person dies indirectly, instead of directly by said tool, that the tool has no place in the blame game for the death that took place...

"Guns don't kill people; Yet we all know that guns have been used in multitudes of deaths."

 

[TriggerHappy]

By that logic, we can compare Tylenol to Claritin, or the epee-pen, they are both drugs afterall.

Tylenol is also abusable, at least the cough medicines which have codeine, promethezine, DXM.

No one has died by guns alone by that logic, as it requires someone to have handled it, or enacted in activating the device to kill.

You're arguing like a child, going in circles and making random nonsense points.
Nobody has died from smoking weed.

/facepalm

"Guns don't kill people; Yet we all know that guns have been used in multitudes of deaths."

So by your logic, if someone is murdered while high, it's the weeds fault.

 

[Elenai]

Tylenol is also abusable, at least the cough medicines which have codeine, promethezine, DXM.

Yet you cannot compare the two, as they are fundamentally different in their purpose, usage, and their very ingredients.

Apples, and Oranges: Lets compare them as they are both fruit!....no, you can't...

You're arguing like a child,

And you are arguing like an addict...atleast I am sane.

going in circles and making random nonsense points.

It is not my fault it is seemingly too far above your head.

Nobody has died from smoking weed

"Guns don't kill people; Yet we all know that guns have been used in multitudes of deaths."

 

[The Reborn Devil]

His tolerance is high.

I know plenty more. Hell, you could try to give anyone here in Norway a lot of coffee and they wouldn't go crazy.

Give a 4 year old child a large sized starbucks...see what happens.

I facepalm again. Try to give a 4 year old child beer and see what happens. Try to give a 4 year old child a smoke and see what happens. Try to give a 4 year old child a friggen chewing gum and see what happens. IT'S NOT FOR 4 YEAR OLD CHILDREN, YOUR ARGUMENT IS RIDICULOUS AND INVALID.

By that logic, we can compare Tylenol to Claritin, or the epee-pen, they are both drugs afterall.

Sure, but you can't compare those to beer and weed, because those are different kinds of drugs.

Wow...You've rested my case by showing an exact example of the extremes I was talking about. As well an exceptional ability to miss the point.

Lol.

No one has died by guns alone by that logic, as it requires someone to have handled it, or enacted in activating the device to kill.

Yes, no one has died from guns or weed ALONE, but many have died from alcohol ALONE and from the side-effects from drinking it.

Edit: Damn server. Had to wait for many minutes to reply...


Edit: This is just like arguing with my brother. He comes with nonsense arguments which would make any sane person facepalm.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Yet you cannot compare the two, as they are fundamentally different in their purpose, usage, and their very ingredients.

Apples, and Oranges: Lets compare them as they are both fruit!....no, you can't...

So, why can't we compare apples and oranges?

And you are arguing like an addict...atleast I am sane.

If you haven't realized by now, everyone is arguing against you.
You have nothing sane left to say and your backwards logic is getting you laughed at.

It is not my fault it is seemingly too far above your head.

So it's not your fault for making points which make no sense then rephrasing them later?

 

[Elenai]

I know plenty more. Hell, you could try to give anyone here in Norway a lot of coffee and they wouldn't go crazy.

"Their" tolerance is higher for caffeine.

facepalm again. Try to give a 4 year old child beer and see what happens. Try to give a 4 year old child a smoke and see what happens. Try to give a 4 year old child a friggen chewing gum and see what happens.

No.duh

IT'S NOT FOR 4 YEAR OLD CHILDREN, YOUR ARGUMENT IS RIDICULOUS AND INVALID.

"Tolerance example"

Perfectly valid. And by the way: "Your argument is ridiculous and invalid", you aren't the god of Logic, you have to prove it is invalid, you can't just 'say it'.

Sure, but you can't compare those to beer and weed, because those are different kinds of drugs.

Exactly my point, and neither can you compare weed, and alcohol as they are fundamentally different.

Point.Proven.

Yes, no one has died from guns or weed ALONE, but many have died from alcohol ALONE and from the side-effects from drinking it.

Doesn't matter, people have still died directly due to the influence of weed, both in culture, and in usage.

So, why can't we compare apples and oranges?

You've never heard that saying have you? (PS: because they are two different fruits)

If you haven't realized by now, everyone is arguing against you.

Do I care? (no)

You have nothing sane left to say and your backwards logic is getting you laughed at.

Yet you fail to prove it is backward.

So it's not your fault for making points which make no sense then rephrasing them later?

Sometimes you just have to really, really, really dumb something down.

 

[Hakeem]

Apples and oranges are comparable. There are something about them that don't compare. The reason that idiom exists is likely that they are common objects that are definitely similar but definitely not identical.

No one has died by guns alone.
No one has died by marijuana alone.

Both statements are true. It takes someone to pull the trigger to make a gun kill somebody, and it takes an entirely external factor to make marijuana kill someone. Of course, then the marijuana isn't the direct cause. Sorta like how we directly blame the person who pulls the trigger for the murder.

 

[TwistedImage]

That's like saying weapon production is a good idea because they need humans to kill anyone. <.<

EDIT: Also, I'm not arguing against Elenai, so you are wrong.

 

[Elenai]

Both statements are true. It takes someone to pull the trigger to make a gun kill somebody, and it takes an entirely external factor to make marijuana kill someone. Of course, then the marijuana isn't the direct cause.

But it does share blame in the deaths of others.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

"Their" tolerance is higher for caffeine.



No.duh



"Tolerance example"

Perfectly valid. And by the way: "Your argument is ridiculous and invalid", you aren't the god of Logic, you have to prove it is invalid, you can't just 'say it'.



Exactly my point, and neither can you compare weed, and alcohol as they are fundamentally different.

Point.Proven.



Doesn't matter, people have still died directly due to the influence of weed, both in culture, and in usage.



You've never heard that saying have you? (PS: because they are two different fruits)



Do I care? (no)



Yet you fail to prove it is backward.



Sometimes you just have to really, really, really dumb something down.

You make me facepalm more and more. Soon I will have my hand imprinted in my face.

"Exactly my point, and neither can you compare weed, and alcohol as they are fundamentally different.

Point.Proven."
You can. Point.Disproved.

"Perfectly valid. And by the way: "Your argument is ridiculous and invalid", you aren't the god of Logic, you have to prove it is invalid, you can't just 'say it'."
And you need to prove it's valid.
I can say it is invalid because I deem it to be so, if you think it's valid then you need to convince me it's valid, which I highly doubt you can.

 

[Elenai]

You can. Point.Disproved.

No you can't, one is a beverage made from fermentation of grain, or fruit, that was drank in the old days as the equivalent of 'soda', and also because the water was bad (its most common usage)...the other is a plant that you burn specifically to get high from (its most common usage).

Point proven yet again.

And you need to prove it's valid.

You are the one who stated first that it was invalid: Burden of proof is yours to bear.

I can say it is invalid because I deem it to be so

Is not proof.

if you think it's valid then you need to convince me it's valid, which I highly doubt you can.

I can't prove green exists to a blind man, no matter how many statements about it I state, no matter how many examples of green I lift up in front of him, and no matter how many sources I cite that it is.

The simple truth, is that green exists. In essence...I've already provided statements, and various other things: You refuse to see them, instead retorting with "NO U! INVALID CUZ I SEZ SO! LOLOLOLIASJIODFHASEIOOLOLOOLOLOLOLO!" style rebuttals.

 

[TwistedImage]

Weed is smoked.

Alcohol is drunk.

Incomparable.

They are both a sort of drug and are equally idiotic, but very distinct in a way as well.

EDIT: Also, as Elenai said, their purposes are vastly different. You don't drink to get drunk, do you? >_>

 

[Hakeem]

But it does share blame in the deaths of others.

Subject of heavy debate. Are the gun companies responsible in part for the murder?

But even so, marijuana alone has never killed anyone. Trying to compare it to something doesn't change that fact. The only way you can debate it is by finding a case where the ingestion of marijuana was the direct cause of a death.

I can say it is invalid because I deem it to be so, if you think it's valid then you need to convince me it's valid, which I highly doubt you can.

No, he really can't. If I tell you 2 + 2 = 4, and you tell me my logic is invalid, how can I possibly hope to convince you it is actually valid?

No, you cannot just call arguments invalid. You can address them and say why they are invalid, or you can just ignore it because everybody will it is invalid and disregard it.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

No you can't, one is a beverage made from fermentation of grain, or fruit, that was drank in the old days as the equivalent of 'soda', and also because the water was bad (its most common usage)...the other is a plant that you burn specifically to get high from (its most common usage).

Point proven yet again.

Both are intended to get you high.
Point disproved yet again.

You are the one who stated first that it was invalid: Burden of proof is yours to bear.

I challenged you to prove it's valid. The burden of proof is yours to bear.

I can't prove green exists to a blind man, no matter how many statements about it I state, no matter how many examples of green I lift up in front of him, and no matter how many sources I cite that it is.

The simple truth, is that green exists. In essence...I've already provided statements, and various other things: You refuse to see them, instead retorting with "NO U! INVALID CUZ I SEZ SO! LOLOLOLIASJIODFHASEIOOLOLOOLOLOLOLO!" style rebuttals.

Haha, hit me with one good and valid argument which I can't deny and I will take that back.

Edit:

No, you cannot just call arguments invalid. You can address them and say why they are invalid, or you can just ignore it because everybody will it is invalid and disregard it.

I said why I called it invalid.


Yet another edit:
Elenai, through your logic an old man can get arrested because he got a child who indirectly gave someone the idea of killing the president.
It just doesn't work.

 

[Elenai]

Subject of heavy debate. Are the gun companies responsible in part for the murder?

Eventually you draw the line somewhere: I usually draw it at the abuse of free will by the one who signs the responsibility of ownership. Something like insurance companies, and the laws that designate who is at fault in an accident.

But even so, marijuana alone has never killed anyone. Trying to compare it to something doesn't change that fact. The only way you can debate it is by finding a case where the ingestion of marijuana was the direct cause of a death.

Guns alone have never killed anyone either, but it does not mean that statement can be used to legalise everyone having a howitzer in their front yard, or boobytrap their house (which is illegal).

That is my point...which sadly so many people glossed over and missed entirely.

Both are intended to get you high.
Point disproved yet again.

I'll just repeat the truth at this point:

No you can't, one is a beverage made from fermentation of grain, or fruit, that was drank in the old days as the equivalent of 'soda', and also because the water was bad (its most common usage)...the other is a plant that you burn specifically to get high from (its most common usage).

Point proven yet again.

I challenged you to prove it's valid. The burden of proof is yours to bear.

What Hakeem said.

Haha, hit me with one good and valid argument which I can't deny and I will take that back.

1+1=2, blue is blue, mammals are warm blooded. There I've given you three.

I said why I called it invalid.

Still didn't prove me wrong though.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Guns alone have never killed anyone either, but it does not mean that statement can be used to legalise everyone having a howitzer in their front yard, or boobytrap their house (which is illegal).

Guns have accidentally gone off and killed people.
Has someone accidentally smoked weed and overdosed?

 

[The Reborn Devil]

Elenai, and you miss our points entirely. To put it simple:
Let's say you have a guy who has smoked weed and finds a gun and kills someone he doesn't like. If he hadn't smoked weed nothing would have changed. If you make sure he doesn't find the gun he wouldn't kill him.


When the killer is under the effects of weed he doesn't kill because he is under the effects of weed, thus you cannot blame the weed.

 

[Elenai]

Guns have accidentally gone off and killed people.
Has someone accidentally smoked weed and overdosed?

A human agent, or other noun had to be handling the gun improperly to begin with.

Has anyone shot anyone while on weed, over weed, stolen for weed?

Let's say you have a guy who has smoked weed and finds a gun and kills someone he doesn't like. If he hadn't smoked weed nothing would have changed. If you make sure he doesn't find the gun he wouldn't kill him.

Who says it wasn't the influence that gave him the courage to go through with it? If you make sure he doesn't have access to the weed, he wouldn't kill him.

 

[TriggerHappy]

If someone was high while they shot someone, I'm sure being high had nothing to do with it.

Let's say you have a guy who has smoked weed and finds a gun and kills someone he doesn't like. If he hadn't smoked weed nothing would have changed.

 

[Elenai]

If someone was high while they shot someone, I'm sure being high had nothing to do with it.

Because you said so?

 

[The Reborn Devil]

Weed isn't like that. Alcohol could make you do it, but weed won't. Maybe if you don't have money and you desperately need weed then maybe you would rob a shop, but you wouldn't kill.

Edit: The rob thing also goes for alcohol.

 

[Elenai]

Weed isn't like that. Alcohol could make you do it, but weed won't. Maybe if you don't have money and you desperately need weed then maybe you would rob a shop, but you wouldn't kill.

Says who?

 

[The Reborn Devil]

The effects of weed isn't like that. You'll get calmer and more careful. In most cases you wouldn't even manage to walk properly to get to the person you don't like. Alcohol however makes you more confident and you'll make more risks.

Edit: Since you will probably say you won't be able to walk after being drunk, I'll say this before you do: That's when you're really drunk. You can still get confident and stupid enough to do it without drinking so much you can't walk.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Because you said so?

No, because I clearly know more about the subject than you do. I know the effects of weed and the different ways it affects you.
If anything, it would make you less likely to want to kill someone.

I find it funny that I could use that exact phrase on the majority of your statements.

 

[TwistedImage]

If someone was high while they shot someone, I'm sure being high had nothing to do with it.

There are police shows from America on television every day or something here.

I've watched it enough to notice that people who are high on weed going bat fuck insane is a prominent topic.

 

[Elenai]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS1eOaLi0_o

You've most likely helped in funding the cartels by the way.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

Weed is calming and relaxing which is one of the reasons to smoke it.

Edit: El, that's something different. Those are drug dealers and need the money to survive and then kill others who can ruin that.
Regular smokers aren't like that. You're trying to take in other elements into this in a desperate attempt at trying to convince us you're right.

Edit2: Just the simple fact that smoking a little bit makes you a lot more careful in traffic says a lot about what marijuana does.

 

[TriggerHappy]

There are police shows from America on television every day or something here.

I've watched it enough to notice that people who are high on weed going bat fuck insane is a prominent topic.

If you also haven't noticed, those people are generally crackheads (literally).
So, someone high on crack coincidentally has weed and you blame the weed?

Anyways, this thread is going nowhere.

 

[TwistedImage]

Weed is calming and relaxing which is one of the reasons to smoke it.

Try meditation, it works better and doesn't make society frown upon you.

 

[Devine]

If I smoke weed, I feel confident and happy-ish.
If I drink alcohol, I feel sad and depressed (even more than usually).
Weed makes you forgive stuff while alcohol makes you retaliate.

 

[Elenai]

El, that's something different. Those are drug dealers and need the money to survive and then kill others who can ruin that.
Regular smokers aren't like that.

No, you just buy the product...is that it? You just raise the demand, and so the supply is produced to meet it...right?

You're trying to take in other elements into this to protect yourself.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but you are closing your eyes to protect yourself. I am just linking a video that proved my point.

 

[Hakeem]

Also, as Elenai said, their purposes are vastly different. You don't drink to get drunk, do you? >_>

Uhhh... Yes? Many people do?

The burden of proof is yours to bear.

No it isn't, but I wont explain why. Instead I'll explain exactly why your response to his statement was not a counterpoint.

I said why I called it invalid.

Yes, but by the point I have to scroll way up to properly address where who went wrong, you can see why I might have a problem with the only content of a post being that the opponent is wrong, and not an explanation as to why.

Now, let me examine the series:
"Coffee is dangerous."
"No it isn't, X can drink loads of it."
"X is tolerant, the effects are still there. Try it with a 4 year old."
"4 year olds are not tolerant to many other things."

That 4 year olds are not tolerant does not mean that every adult is totally tolerant and that that is a natural tolerance. Coffee is not inert.

Guns alone have never killed anyone either, but it does not mean that statement can be used to legalise everyone having a howitzer in their front yard, or boobytrap their house (which is illegal).

No, because guns are inherently dangerous. Marijuana is not. The only danger comes from it being illegal, not from the drug itself. Marijuana is one of the safest drugs out there. In order to justify it being illegal, you really have your work cut out for you. If you knew anything about the plant besides what you have heard on TV or from any general source bashing the drug, that is to say, if you had an interest in researching the drug, or if you were waist deep in the information because everyone around you uses it, then you might easily be on the pro-legalization side.

If you want to hold your opinion, by all means, hold it, but please be fully informed if you are going to debate it.

[rest of the post]

The same applies to you as to TRD and the others. I loathe talk of, "I am right, you are wrong/illogical/stubborn/whatever." I don't want to hear about how right or wrong anybody is. If I were to implement a double posting rule that worked like the double-threading rule, that is, if I were to remove posts with duplicate contents, I would be removing a whole lot of posts, and certainly a large portion of your posts.

---

---

Would you all shut up and debate?

No? Well, then I'll close this thread for an hour or so while people calm down and think about what there were doing.

 

[Hakeem]

Has anyone shot anyone [...] over weed, stolen for weed?

Has anyone shot over a girl? Stolen for her? Killed for her? Do we make things illegal for people being passionate about them? No. No, because that is not a reason to make something illegal. Remember prohibition? Did people get passionate about that? Did people lie, cheat, and steal over that? When prohibition ended, same amount of lying, cheating, and stealing? The question is if the plant should be legal to do anything with. Not legal to smoke, not legal to bake into brownies, not legal to weave into a sock puppet to entertain yourself while you're having the munchies, but to even own or grow.

How, I ask you, how, can owning an unthinking piece of nature be a crime? That is the core of the debate. That it is illegal causes confrontation over it. If it weren't illegal, it would have no part in drug wars.

Now, it is true that the plant is commonly smoked to get high. I don't care what people do on their own property with their own property, in their own privacy, unless they are harming others or themselves.

Now, if you want to make it illegal, nay, if you want to make anything illegal, you must demonstrate exactly why it is so incredibly harmful, and under what circumstances it is harmful. If and when it is not harmful, it should be legal. Otherwise, you are forcing your opinions on someone, and we all know people don't like to be told what to do or what not to do, and violently so.

Of course anyone is free to disagree with this, but please disagree in person with the people around you first before coming to the internet to enforce your beliefs on others.


If this general logic framework doesn't sit well with you, make another thread and postpone participation in this one, if you like.

There are police shows from America on television every day or something here.

I've watched it enough to notice that people who are high on weed going bat fuck insane is a prominent topic.

And alcohol is innocent? Don't all the criminals tend to be on the illogical side?

Try meditation, it works better.

For some people, and some strains.

No, you just buy the product...is that it? You just raise the demand, and so the supply is produced to meet it...right?

It grows in America. Natively. Anyone trying to smuggle it is wasting their own money of their own volition.

 

[Elenai]

I will only state Hakeem: I have never once said it should be illegalised in my arguments...merely that it should not be "legalised", for a multitude of reasons.

My argument has been, and specifically is against the Legalisation.

<illegalise it>----<don't legalise it>----<middle ground/don't care>----<don't illegalise it>----<legalise it>

I am here

As it stands, it is illegal, against the law, and I believe for good reason: I am content for it to remain that way.

And with that I finish my part in this charade.

 

[Hakeem]

That's sure to cause confusion.


I may agree that radical law repealing is too sudden and will invoke chaos.

 

[Traxamillion]

It's illegal because they can't tax it, thats why the law is being re-appealed so they can sell it and tax it.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I say recreational drugs be kept illegal as they are too easy to abuse and permantly ruin your life. Yes people can use them in a controled way but generally people are not smart enough to use them carefully or maybe they just lack self control.

Alcohol on the otherhand is a lot less dangerous than most drugs. Yes it still can be dangerous but human tollerance to it is generally better as it is a naturally occuring product of digestion. However the same argument for the drugs applies that people are incapable of using it in a safe way and all the health problems are then caused by its availability. What needs to be done is to educate people and to make fun of abusers rather than making fun of people who do not abuse.

The mater still remains that there is no point in using recreational drugs in a safe way as the only safe method of consumption means you will not be mentally affected at all (which is the whole point of using it).

In the end both substances are being consumed only for their neuro / body damaging effects. Drugs being far wose than alcohol as they are easier to consume and have no or bad taste. On the other hand you can drink alcohol for the flavour in a safe way like my family does and be completly healthy.

 

[Hakeem]

However the same argument for the drugs applies that people are incapable of using it in a safe way and all the health problems are then caused by its availability. What needs to be done is to educate people.

That is what I think. Making it illegal wont make people responsible. If sex were illegal, there would be no sex ed classes, or any attempt to teach people how to have safe sex. That it is legal, and that the sale of condoms is therefore legal, means that there is funding to teach people to have sex responsibly. There can't be "toke responsibly" posters or propaganda of any kind because the drug is illegal to start with.

People love to think the government can solve everything, and that teaching people to think for themselves is useless.

 

[Traxamillion]

I say recreational drugs be kept illegal as they are too easy to abuse and permantly ruin your life. Yes people can use them in a controled way but generally people are not smart enough to use them carefully or maybe they just lack self control.

Were talking about Weed not legalizing Crack cocaine.. Its alot different.

Alcohol on the otherhand is a lot less dangerous than most drugs. Yes it still can be dangerous but human tollerance to it is generally better as it is a naturally occuring product of digestion. However the same argument for the drugs applies that people are incapable of using it in a safe way and all the health problems are then caused by its availability. What needs to be done is to educate people and to make fun of abusers rather than making fun of people who do not abuse.

LOLWUT Alcohol is WAY more dangerous than Marijuana Go read some facts, you could not be more wrong. Alcohol can kill you and cause long term issues, where as Marijuana involves short term memory loss, and maybe minor lung issues if used heavily. Also serious crime reports involving alcohol are alot more common than weed and weed related crimes are only becuase it is illegal, not due to the effects after being under the influence.

 

[Fussiler1]

If weed is so harmless..

Why is it classified under drugs?

 

[TriggerHappy]

If weed is so harmless..

Why is it classified under drugs?

So, advil should be illegal then? Maybe tylenol too?

Like hakeem said, people need to think for themselves. Thinking with that kind of mentality, by classifying everything into one category and writing it off as bad, without knowing anything about it. Why do people think "drugs" are bad? Because the government says so..

 

[Fussiler1]

So, advil should be illegal then? Maybe tylenol too?

Like hakeem said, people need to think for themselves. Thinking with that kind of mentality, by classifying everything into one category and writing it off as bad, without knowing anything about it. Why do people think "drugs" are bad? Because the government says so..

No, no, it was really a question out of curiosity.

Also, people think drugs is bad because of the examples of drug-addicts that are completely wrecked and miserable.

 

[Hakeem]

Because it could severely impact other industries. These other industries basically bribed the government once upon a time to make marijuana illegal.


Either that, or everyone got up on day and decided to sign a petition to make it illegal, it passed to the polls and the public voted themselves out of the responsibility to think for themselves.

 

[Devine]

I just read a text about how in some cases alcohol can cause dementia. If you drink frequently (2 or more glasses of beer/wE), dementia can strike up to 5 years earlier than it would if you didn't drink alcohol at all. However, moderated drinking can somehow
post-bone the effects of alcohol.
I thought I'd leave this here. Imo, there really isn't any logical explanation for weed to be illegal other than the global view on weed being distorted. Who knows why everybody thinks weed is so bad.