If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News.com.au)   Caught with one kilo of pot, that will be a 5,000 word essay. Mind you it has to be on the "bad things" and cannot be a balanced reporting of the facts   (news.com.au) divider line 67
    More: Asinine, Bristol Crown Court, British Heart Foundation, effects of marijuana  
•       •       •

5663 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Mar 2013 at 1:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-30 05:28:46 PM
I recently found out that a distant friend of mine had died of cancer. In discussions with her brother, I found the chemotherapy made her feel so badly, that she stopped it for a time -- which I figure aided in her demise.

When I knew her younger self, she smoked pot now and then, but, married and after having a kid, she apparently gave up her 'wild ways'. (Another reason, IMO, not to have kids.)

So I asked if anyone had given her pot -- and was assured that no one had. I pointed out that they should have because pot has the effect of decreasing the unpleasant symptoms of Chemo and would have encouraged her failing appetite.

I recommend pot for anyone who has to go through the ghastly hell of chemotherapy. It's been proven far too many times to help to be considered a bunch of BS.
 
2013-03-30 05:58:41 PM

Somaticasual: snocone: orbister: snocone: So, a work of fiction.

Got any like science stuff to back up the derp?
Thought not.
The plant is non toxic, there is no lethal dosage. That is backed up by thousands of years of documented experience with the plant(starting with cave pictures and of course, the wall art of the pyramids), not 80 years of manufactured lies. It is backed up by three federally funded comprehensive studies since 1950, all completely buried when published.
It does not make black men rape white women.
Look it up.

Look, we can't gloss over the bad parts of cannabis to appease the legalization movement. While it may not cause cancer, and while it may not have an LD50 that's even practical in normal usage, it does have three known harmful effects (not including idiotic sentences and jailtime or a felony record):

1) COPD, assuming you're smoking it. Most inhaled smoke is exhaled, but some does get absorbed the mucous lining of various airways. This, in turn, builds up to contribute to COPD.
2) Endocrinological effects. There is quite a bit of evidence that heavy users can experience hormonal issues, and run an increased risk of testicular cancer. This one is independent of smoking, IIRC.Have you ever met a heavy smoker that didn't get a little irritable if they go a day or two without?
3) Emphysema. For the same reasoning as the COPD basically, smoking anything can lead up to emphysema. It's not on the same level as tobacco, but it's not trivial.

That being said, the consequences to our society of arresting otherwise productive members of society, and giving people records that will cost them chances at jobs/etc, are completely asinine when compared to the actual dangers of marijuana use. It should never have ...


Nice case against SMOKING.
Swell, that logic is called???
The subject is marijuana.
 
2013-03-30 06:01:18 PM

orbister: snocone: Got any like science stuff to back up the derp?

Of course the term "stoner" is universally used to mean a happy, well adjusted person who has achieved their full potential. And you'd be entirely happy to have people driving while stoned.

As I said, blinding yourself to the disadvantages of pot is as stupid as pretending that they are overwhelming.


Son, you are the blind one.

But, then it is just pretend, eh?
 
2013-03-30 06:17:27 PM

snocone: Somaticasual: snocone: orbister: snocone: So, a work of fiction.

Got any like science stuff to back up the derp?
Thought not.
The plant is non toxic, there is no lethal dosage. That is backed up by thousands of years of documented experience with the plant(starting with cave pictures and of course, the wall art of the pyramids), not 80 years of manufactured lies. It is backed up by three federally funded comprehensive studies since 1950, all completely buried when published.
It does not make black men rape white women.
Look it up.

Look, we can't gloss over the bad parts of cannabis to appease the legalization movement. While it may not cause cancer, and while it may not have an LD50 that's even practical in normal usage, it does have three known harmful effects (not including idiotic sentences and jailtime or a felony record):

1) COPD, assuming you're smoking it. Most inhaled smoke is exhaled, but some does get absorbed the mucous lining of various airways. This, in turn, builds up to contribute to COPD.
2) Endocrinological effects. There is quite a bit of evidence that heavy users can experience hormonal issues, and run an increased risk of testicular cancer. This one is independent of smoking, IIRC.Have you ever met a heavy smoker that didn't get a little irritable if they go a day or two without?
3) Emphysema. For the same reasoning as the COPD basically, smoking anything can lead up to emphysema. It's not on the same level as tobacco, but it's not trivial.

That being said, the consequences to our society of arresting otherwise productive members of society, and giving people records that will cost them chances at jobs/etc, are completely asinine when compared to the actual dangers of marijuana use. It should never have ...

Nice case against SMOKING.
Swell, that logic is called???
The subject is marijuana.


You made the statement that there's 100% no harm in pot. That would count whether or not they were smoking it if it was a factually correct argument, so that's some funny table-turning attempt you got there. And, if we're honest, at least 95% still smoke it, they don't vaporize or eat it to reduce that risk.

Don't expect to not be called out on a statement that just isn't true - it hurts the legalization movement to fudge the numbers, and makes it look like the movement is just a bunch of ill-informed stoners that shouldn't be taken seriously.

//still supports it being legal, as even ibuprofen has a rap sheet a mile long for negative health effects and it's still orders better for our society vs. alchohol.
 
2013-03-30 06:17:59 PM
my friend in high school had to do that. but it was her dad who made her do it, and it was only an ounce. and i don't think it had to be 5000 words. i think it's a very thoughtful and appropriate punishment.

/ she and her boy later bought a house and went thru post-grad on their grow-money and lived happily ever after with fancy professional jobs.

// that didn't really happen. made it all up. ha! silly me, just typing words on the internet, a person no one here knows talking about people who never really existed who did things that might have been illegal if they had done them but they didn't so there....

/// she later found the seeds and stems on the floor of her father's car.
 
2013-03-30 06:28:44 PM

Rik01: I recently found out that a distant friend of mine had died of cancer. In discussions with her brother, I found the chemotherapy made her feel so badly, that she stopped it for a time -- which I figure aided in her demise.

When I knew her younger self, she smoked pot now and then, but, married and after having a kid, she apparently gave up her 'wild ways'. (Another reason, IMO, not to have kids.)

So I asked if anyone had given her pot -- and was assured that no one had. I pointed out that they should have because pot has the effect of decreasing the unpleasant symptoms of Chemo and would have encouraged her failing appetite.

I recommend pot for anyone who has to go through the ghastly hell of chemotherapy. It's been proven far too many times to help to be considered a bunch of BS.


While I wouldn't have recommended smoking or vapeing (at least not in front of the kids), a nice batch of 'special' cookies that 'help mommy get through the day' would not have been out of order, IMHO. Sorry about your friend.
 
2013-03-30 06:40:07 PM

snocone: Son, you are the blind one.


I repeat: do you think people should be allowed to drive under the influence of pot?
 
2013-03-30 06:41:07 PM

Somaticasual: Don't expect to not be called out on a statement that just isn't true - it hurts the legalization movement to fudge the numbers, and makes it look like the movement is just a bunch of ill-informed stoners that shouldn't be taken seriously.


Well put.
 
2013-03-30 08:01:29 PM

orbister: snocone: Son, you are the blind one.

I repeat: do you think people should be allowed to drive under the influence of pot?


I do. And I do.
 
2013-03-30 08:22:08 PM

lewismarktwo: orbister: snocone: Son, you are the blind one.

I repeat: do you think people should be allowed to drive under the influence of pot?

I do. And I do.


Without qualification?
 
2013-03-30 08:33:04 PM
His essay should list as many bad things about pot as possible.

Such as, the waste of police resources used to investigate and charge pot suppliers and users.

The waster of court time used to prosecute pot cases.

The fact that a conviction (but not private possession or use) will often adversely affect someone's employment.

The amount of resources, including limited jail and prison space, that are consumed that could be put to better use if they were reserved for violent offenders.

The costs to maintain the status quo.
 
2013-03-30 09:07:26 PM

orbister: snocone: So, a work of fiction.

The idea that cannabis has no negative effects is as ludicrous as the Reefer Madness alternative. The war on drugs has been discredited (for intelligent people) by hyperbole; it would be a great disservice to do the same for the pro-legalisation argument.


Finally, somebody with sense.
 
2013-03-30 09:36:37 PM

orbister: lewismarktwo: orbister: snocone: Son, you are the blind one.

I repeat: do you think people should be allowed to drive under the influence of pot?

I do. And I do.

Without qualification?


Well, let me tell you, trying to roll a joint or even pack a bowl at 85 mph with the ol' knee steering can be a dicey proposition, but that is covered in existing distracted and reckless driving laws.
 
2013-03-31 04:53:31 AM
Mr Bennet, have you ever written essay.. on weed?
 
2013-03-31 10:38:59 AM

erupt2001: orbister: snocone: So, a work of fiction.

The idea that cannabis has no negative effects is as ludicrous as the Reefer Madness alternative. The war on drugs has been discredited (for intelligent people) by hyperbole; it would be a great disservice to do the same for the pro-legalisation argument.

Finally, somebody with sense.


But no science, no facts.
So sad.
 
2013-03-31 10:41:18 AM

orbister: lewismarktwo: orbister: snocone: Son, you are the blind one.

I repeat: do you think people should be allowed to drive under the influence of pot?

I do. And I do.

Without qualification?


Get this straight, pot is not alcohol.
The effects are different and not scalable to the alcohol poisoning of a central nervous system depressant.
 
2013-03-31 10:46:08 AM

Somaticasual: snocone: Somaticasual: snocone: orbister: snocone: So, a work of fiction.

Got any like science stuff to back up the derp?
Thought not.
The plant is non toxic, there is no lethal dosage. That is backed up by thousands of years of documented experience with the plant(starting with cave pictures and of course, the wall art of the pyramids), not 80 years of manufactured lies. It is backed up by three federally funded comprehensive studies since 1950, all completely buried when published.
It does not make black men rape white women.
Look it up.

Look, we can't gloss over the bad parts of cannabis to appease the legalization movement. While it may not cause cancer, and while it may not have an LD50 that's even practical in normal usage, it does have three known harmful effects (not including idiotic sentences and jailtime or a felony record):

1) COPD, assuming you're smoking it. Most inhaled smoke is exhaled, but some does get absorbed the mucous lining of various airways. This, in turn, builds up to contribute to COPD.
2) Endocrinological effects. There is quite a bit of evidence that heavy users can experience hormonal issues, and run an increased risk of testicular cancer. This one is independent of smoking, IIRC.Have you ever met a heavy smoker that didn't get a little irritable if they go a day or two without?
3) Emphysema. For the same reasoning as the COPD basically, smoking anything can lead up to emphysema. It's not on the same level as tobacco, but it's not trivial.

That being said, the consequences to our society of arresting otherwise productive members of society, and giving people records that will cost them chances at jobs/etc, are completely asinine when compared to the actual dangers of marijuana use. It should never have ...

Nice case against SMOKING.
Swell, that logic is called???
The subject is marijuana.

You made the statement that there's 100% no harm in pot. That would count whether or not they were smoking it if it was a factually correct argu ...


I said what I said, not what you think I might have said or wish I had said or whatever.
If you have something to say, swell, but knock off the posturing and trying to change my statement.
Smoking is bad. Neato! Now get on topic, if you please.
 
Displayed 17 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report