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.

(Chicago Trib)   Deaths from prescription drugs: thousands. Deaths from marijauna: none. No wait...we may have a late entry   (chicagotribune.com) divider line 178
    More: Asinine, Man Jumping, prescription drugs, uptown  
•       •       •

15689 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Apr 2013 at 8:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-30 10:43:45 PM  

albatros183: actually overall people are more likely to do things if they are illegal, see prohibition

I can look up the cits if you don't believe me, but this is true for every drug, including coke and heroin, both of which have been legal in the US withing the last 100 years.


Funny that within 20 seconds of each other we both used prohibition as a talking point, but used on either side of the spectrum.

If you're comparing coke, heroin, or alcohol you would have to do it based on percentage of population, not on raw numbers.  For example cocaine was made illegal in 1914 when the population was around 100 million, whereas today it is around 315 million.

Also you are comparing drastically different times in the US.  The infrastructure and supply chains (both legal and illegal) are not comparable from 100 years ago.  There just wouldn't have been the supply and the ways to get it from point a to point b (legal or not) back then that exist today.
 
2013-04-30 10:46:56 PM  
*Reads comment:

mjbok: albatros183: actually overall people are more likely to do things if they are illegal, see prohibition

I can look up the cits if you don't believe me, but this is true for every drug, including coke and heroin, both of which have been legal in the US withing the last 100 years.

Funny that within 20 seconds of each other we both used prohibition as a talking point, but used on either side of the spectrum.

If you're comparing coke, heroin, or alcohol you would have to do it based on percentage of population, not on raw numbers.  For example cocaine was made illegal in 1914 when the population was around 100 million, whereas today it is around 315 million.

Also you are comparing drastically different times in the US.  The infrastructure and supply chains (both legal and illegal) are not comparable from 100 years ago.  There just wouldn't have been the supply and the ways to get it from point a to point b (legal or not) back then that exist today.


*Reads profile:

"IT Professional/Stand-up comic/aspiring screenwriter"

Waitaminute... You're stoned right now aren't you!?
 
2013-04-30 10:48:33 PM  

CPXBRex: I'm not sure I understand your point. In the case of fatalities, everyone involves gets a urine or blood test. They don't wait thirty days to take the test, they pretty much do it as soon as they can and it is my understanding that they ignore trace metabolites and look for concentrations that indicate intoxication at the time of the accident (just as they are primarily interested in levels of alcohol intoxication that indicate intoxication at the time of the accident, not that you had trace amounts of alcohol in your system because you had a couple of beers four hours before the accident). Or am I missing something?


It remains in your system for about 30 days, and there is no reliable method of using concentration to prove the last time they smoked any. None that hold up in court, anyway. Last i heard that laser idea was the best plan for proving if someone is under the influence anyone had come up with. Alcohol is a much different beast, due to our body metabolizing and being rid of it pretty fast. If it's in your body, you are feeling the effects of it, and could be impaired. Because THC is absolutely harmless the body is in no hurry to be rid of it.
 
2013-04-30 10:48:52 PM  

mjbok: Funny that within 20 seconds of each other we both used prohibition as a talking point, but used on either side of the spectrum.

If you're comparing coke, heroin, or alcohol you would have to do it based on percentage of population, not on raw numbers.  For example cocaine was made illegal in 1914 when the population was around 100 million, whereas today it is around 315 million.

Also you are comparing drastically different times in the US.  The infrastructure and supply chains (both legal and illegal) are not comparable from 100 years ago.  There just wouldn't have been the supply and the ways to get it from point a to point b (legal or not) back then that exist today.


I can't say for anything other than alcohol during the Prohibition, but per capita use of alcohol rose during Prohibition.  There was a decline for a bit but then, when organized crime came to dominate the illegal alcohol production and distribution, drinking reached all time per capita highs.

It's probably hard to find meaningful demographic information vis-a-vis cocaine and heroin use in the years immediately after the drugs became outlawed, but the data about Prohibition's effect on alcohol consumption is pretty easy to find.
 
2013-04-30 10:51:27 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: It remains in your system for about 30 days, and there is no reliable method of using concentration to prove the last time they smoked any. None that hold up in court, anyway. Last i heard that laser idea was the best plan for proving if someone is under the influence anyone had come up with. Alcohol is a much different beast, due to our body metabolizing and being rid of it pretty fast. If it's in your body, you are feeling the effects of it, and could be impaired. Because THC is absolutely harmless the body is in no hurry to be rid of it.


Huh.  I didn't know that the tests didn't measure concentrations reliably.  Live and learn!
 
2013-04-30 10:52:59 PM  

Phoenix87ta: Red Shirt Blues: The first time I made canna butter I put in waaaaaay too much weed. I made cookies and was snacking on the dough while baking. I has two fresh out of the oven. Things got very intense for awhile.

Reminds me of the time some...uh...friends of a friend made brownies.  This friend got to their house and started chowing down on the crispy crusts cut from the brownies, having no idea that these weren't JUST brownies...

Man, that was an interesting night.


He used a pan like this?:
cdn-s3-2.wanelo.com


/hot
 
2013-04-30 11:03:12 PM  

lewismarktwo: "IT Professional/Stand-up comic/aspiring screenwriter"

Waitaminute... You're stoned right now aren't you!?


Can't.  I have to drive somewhere later.

CPXBRex: I can't say for anything other than alcohol during the Prohibition, but per capita use of alcohol rose during Prohibition. There was a decline for a bit but then, when organized crime came to dominate the illegal alcohol production and distribution, drinking reached all time per capita highs.


I'll admit I was wrong (quite wrong actually) about Prohibition.  The number of (illegal) bars during prohibition was a multiple of the (legal) bars before the law was inacted.  It is possible, however unlikely that this will be true about weed.  The reason I doubt it it is because unlike weed, alcohol had a HUGE footprint when it was outlawed.  I see no way that consumption, thus exposure to driving goes down with it being more readily available.

Growing up an hearing all of the "evils of marijuana" always made me laugh, because once you were exposed to it you knew it wasn't the big bad thing the powers that be made it out to be.  Now is the time where the flipside is true, where people are saying that it is harmless, it doesn't impair you, etc.  I would rather have to deal with a high person than a drunk person, much like I would rather have a high driver than a drunk driver.  However, I would rather have a sober driver above either.
 
2013-04-30 11:04:30 PM  

lewismarktwo: adenosine: Jument: Either way, you shouldn't be smoking anywhere in an apartment complex. Even if it's perfectly legal, it's a way stronger smell than cigarette smoke.

No, cigs smell way worse. My neighbors partake on occasion late at night and they are nothing compared to the prior guys that would smoke cigs. The main problem I have is that there is no way for me to lawfully buy some so I can join in on the fun.

Yep, cigs are way worse and smell permeates and lingers unlike cannabis.

Hell, I used to vape cannabis (even less smelly than smoking) when I had a strait edge roommate that claimed she could 'always smell it, every time, even on clothes afterwards'.  She was clueless.  I know because she would definitely have lectured me if she knew.

Also, driving while high on cannabis is simply not a real problem, but it is the new 'hey whoa, let's not let people just use cannabis freely' talkingpoint campaign.


I'm honestly curious why you don't think driving while high on pot is a problem. No snark. I have heard others say that and this is my biggest concern when it comes to legalizing pot. I lost a friend to a drunk driver so I am worried this will mean more impaired people on the road.
 
2013-04-30 11:05:37 PM  

CPXBRex: mjbok: Funny that within 20 seconds of each other we both used prohibition as a talking point, but used on either side of the spectrum.

If you're comparing coke, heroin, or alcohol you would have to do it based on percentage of population, not on raw numbers.  For example cocaine was made illegal in 1914 when the population was around 100 million, whereas today it is around 315 million.

Also you are comparing drastically different times in the US.  The infrastructure and supply chains (both legal and illegal) are not comparable from 100 years ago.  There just wouldn't have been the supply and the ways to get it from point a to point b (legal or not) back then that exist today.

I can't say for anything other than alcohol during the Prohibition, but per capita use of alcohol rose during Prohibition.  There was a decline for a bit but then, when organized crime came to dominate the illegal alcohol production and distribution, drinking reached all time per capita highs.

It's probably hard to find meaningful demographic information vis-a-vis cocaine and heroin use in the years immediately after the drugs became outlawed, but the data about Prohibition's effect on alcohol consumption is pretty easy to find.


Back in the day, cocaine and heroin usage weren't exactly big problems outside of a very few problem areas.  They were more than likely outlawed because someone fairly close to some lawmaker or politician got into it and screwed their lives up.  I'm not saying it was right or wrong, just saying.  At that time, recreational drug use wasn't really a very big thing.  It wasn't widely talked about.  I don't think it was until the middle of the 1900s when they were able to even test people for those substances anyway...so you'd pretty much have to rely on them telling you what they've done.  Otherwise they could be on about anything.  Are they drunk?  Do they have a cold?  Did they smoke a shiat ton of opium?  Are they having a stroke?  Who knows?

I actually heard a theory that all the marijuana hating craze back in the day wasn't strictly because of marijuana.  I have a feeling a lot of other things got lumped in with it and not really separated.  It isn't a stretch to think that maybe some of the batshiat crazy things they've said about marijuana usage could have actually been the results of someone smoking a bunch of opium and a couple of joints...or doing a shiatload of speed and smoking a couple of joints, and so on and so fourth.
 
2013-04-30 11:08:39 PM  
marijauna?
 
2013-04-30 11:10:47 PM  

Oldiron_79: Al!: SlothB77: Only on fark do people believe no one has died from marijuana.

That's ridiculous.  THC is remarkably safe: http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/thc_data_sheet.shtml

According to that page, and assuming similar LD50 in humans (a stretch, I know...), a 175lb human would have to ingest 521.4 grams of pure THC to have a likely chance of a fatality.  Think about what it would take to come up with that much pure THC and tell me people OD on pot.  I'd be impressed if anyone in the world could smoke half of that in a single day.

Also: http://www.oregon.gov/Pharmacy/Imports/Marijuana/Public/DeathsFromMar i juanaV17FDAdrugs.pdf

That's a study done on fatalities related to marijuana compared to 17 other FDA approved drugs.  They found zero deaths directly caused by pot.  Every other drug had numerous deaths directly attributed to it.  For instance, Viagra had 2254 deaths directly tied to the drug itself, and Ritalin had 121.  Marinol even had 4 deaths in the study, yet pot had zero.

If you tried ODing by smoking pot and had an infinite supply to do it with you would die of carbon monoxide poisoning from inhaling farking smoke before you died of THC overdose.


That's why you smoke it in the woods, plenty of air circulation and a lower concentration of authority figures per square mile... Or so I've been told.
 
2013-04-30 11:11:29 PM  

CPXBRex: Huh. I didn't know that the tests didn't measure concentrations reliably. Live and learn!


Went looking for a link on the laser thing, and it seems everyone is talking about devices that test saliva now. Which makes sense because THC wouldn't remain there as long after smoking any, so would be a better indicator if someone is under the influence. Probably see those appearing over the next few years.
 
2013-04-30 11:16:10 PM  
CPXBRex:
But most people smoke it, and that's all kinds of bad for your health.

BZZZZT WRONG ANSWER

think i'm making it up? Take it up with all the cancer institute studies. AFTER you fark off, pig.
 
2013-04-30 11:18:29 PM  

Hrist: I actually heard a theory that all the marijuana hating craze back in the day wasn't strictly because of marijuana.  I have a feeling a lot of other things got lumped in with it and not really separated.


AS IN racist stereotypes designed to castigate blacks and hispanics in the early 1900's?

ragefaces.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-04-30 11:24:57 PM  

LookForTheArrow: Hrist: I actually heard a theory that all the marijuana hating craze back in the day wasn't strictly because of marijuana.  I have a feeling a lot of other things got lumped in with it and not really separated.

AS IN racist stereotypes designed to castigate blacks and hispanics in the early 1900's?


Either that, or hemp production's negative economic influence on a certain large company's investment in wood-based paper production. Corporate lobbyists aren't a new thing.
 
2013-04-30 11:29:41 PM  

Dafatone: So uh... what cause did the cops have to enter?  You mean if I call up cops and tell them that my neighbor is getting high, they'll bust in?


Yep. What's known in the biz as "probable cause."

Depending on your neighborhood and what else you tell them, of course. An upscale neighborhood where cops mind their manners and the call is about some college kids getting their buzz on, not so much. A low-rent area known for gangbanging and you say there "might" be a weapon "involved"? Sit back and watch the carnage.
 
2013-04-30 11:34:24 PM  

TheJoe03: CPXBRex: About 1% of all traffic accidents can be attributed to cannabis use.

So it's not a big problem then.


Maybe not, but if they're in the center lane doing 45 in a 60 I'll be their farking cause of death.
 
2013-04-30 11:35:42 PM  

autopsybeverage: LookForTheArrow: Hrist: I actually heard a theory that all the marijuana hating craze back in the day wasn't strictly because of marijuana.  I have a feeling a lot of other things got lumped in with it and not really separated.

AS IN racist stereotypes designed to castigate blacks and hispanics in the early 1900's?

Either that, or hemp production's negative economic influence on a certain large company's investment in wood-based paper production. Corporate lobbyists aren't a new thing.


WHY NOT BO... aw, you know

(the racism thing is documented, good read here: http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Drugs-Stone-Stoned/dp/089281826 3)
 
2013-04-30 11:38:31 PM  

LookForTheArrow: think i'm making it up? Take it up with all the cancer institute studies. AFTER you fark off, pig.


No, I don't think you're making it up.  I think you're a moron.  Real epidemological studies about the effects of smoking cannabis are inconclusive, but that's to be expected in such a politicized environment.

So, Aldington, S. et al. Cannabis use and risk of lung cancer: a case-control study. The European Respiratory Journal. 2008. 31(2):280-6, concludes that cannabis smoking increases the chance of cancer in young adults while Chen, A. et al. Hypothesizing that marijuana smokers are at a significantly lower risk of carcinogenicity relative to tobacco-non-marijuana smokers: evidence based on reevaluation of current literature. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2008. 40(3):263-72 conclude that the extent to which cannabis smoking contributes to lung cancer is confounded by polydrug use with nicotine to the extent they don't consider their results reliable.  Later on, Chen would go in Hypothesizing that marijuana smokers are at a significantly lower risk of carcinogenicity relative to tobacco-non-marijuana smokers: evidenced based on statistical reevaluation of current literature in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 2008 Sep; 40 (3):263-72 to say that there was an inverse correlation between cannabis use and cancer -- but the medical community is highly critical of his methodology which was normative reinterpretations of other reports.  On the other hand, in Sarafian, T. et al. Oxidative stress produced by marijuana smokers. An adverse effect enhanced by cannabinoids. American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology. 1999. 20(6):1286-93 the conclusion is that, yes, cannabis smoking causes cancer.
The medical consensus is that cannabis smoke contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke, it causes inflammation and cell damage that has been linked to cancerous changes in cell tissue and cannabis has been demonstrated to cause immune system dysfunction.  Additionally, there are strong links between cannabis use testicular cancer, prostrate cancer, cervical cancer and leukemia in pregant women.  However, this is with the caveat that the research is difficult to do for a variety of factors (such as the fact it's an illegal drug and factoring out polydrug use) and more needs to be done.
So, I find your rage confusing.  Even if you disagree with with general medical consensus, my position is not one steeped in ignorance.  Any survey of the material will find consensus to be split in key areas but tending towards the idea that cannabis smoking isn't good for you.  But I'm to fark off because I'm a pig?  Seems . . . excessive.
 
2013-04-30 11:45:50 PM  

CPXBRex: LookForTheArrow: think i'm making it up? Take it up with all the cancer institute studies. AFTER you fark off, pig.


SO AFTER THAT WALL OF TEXTthe best the medical community can up with is firm "uhhh, maybe" and many high-end research studies show THC has positive influences on apoptosis and reduces and prevents cancer.

Compare what you just copy/pasted with your previous statement: "But most people smoke it, and that's all kinds of bad for your health."

You can't even prove that  and you had time to cherry pick your links! Your type of senseless stereotypical unsubstantiated lies are HURTING this country, pig!
 
2013-04-30 11:47:06 PM  

Hrist: CPXBRex: mjbok: Funny that within 20 seconds of each other we both used prohibition as a talking point, but used on either side of the spectrum.

If you're comparing coke, heroin, or alcohol you would have to do it based on percentage of population, not on raw numbers.  For example cocaine was made illegal in 1914 when the population was around 100 million, whereas today it is around 315 million.

Also you are comparing drastically different times in the US.  The infrastructure and supply chains (both legal and illegal) are not comparable from 100 years ago.  There just wouldn't have been the supply and the ways to get it from point a to point b (legal or not) back then that exist today.

I can't say for anything other than alcohol during the Prohibition, but per capita use of alcohol rose during Prohibition.  There was a decline for a bit but then, when organized crime came to dominate the illegal alcohol production and distribution, drinking reached all time per capita highs.

It's probably hard to find meaningful demographic information vis-a-vis cocaine and heroin use in the years immediately after the drugs became outlawed, but the data about Prohibition's effect on alcohol consumption is pretty easy to find.

Back in the day, cocaine and heroin usage weren't exactly big problems outside of a very few problem areas.  They were more than likely outlawed because someone fairly close to some lawmaker or politician got into it and screwed their lives up.  I'm not saying it was right or wrong, just saying.  At that time, recreational drug use wasn't really a very big thing.  It wasn't widely talked about.  I don't think it was until the middle of the 1900s when they were able to even test people for those substances anyway...so you'd pretty much have to rely on them telling you what they've done.  Otherwise they could be on about anything.  Are they drunk?  Do they have a cold?  Did they smoke a shiat ton of opium?  Are they having a stroke?  Who knows?

I actually ...


For what is worth, many of the first anti-drug laws in the US were really racist in conception.  The first drug law in the US that wasn't about alcohol was an 1875 law in San Francisco that criminalized opium dens.  Not opium in the form of laudanum, but opium dens.  It was directed at the Chinese community in San Francisco and largely passed out of the terrors of miscegenation.  They were very concerned that those evil Chinese would use opium to lure white women into debauchery.  It wasn't subtle: "within three blocks of the City Hall eight opium smoking establishments, kept by Chinese, for the exclusive use of white men and women; that these places are patronized not only by the vicious and depraved, but are nightly resorted to by young men and women of respectable parentage; (and) that unless this most dangerous species of dissipation can be stopped in its inception, there is great danger that it will become one of the prevalent vices of the city."

Early cannabis laws were equally directed by racism and fears of miscegenation -- the terrifying image of Mexican men using the devil weed to seduce respectable white women.

The same trends are still around, too, like the laws that say that 1 gram of crack is to be treated as 100 grams of cocaine, a law not very subtly directed at poor and black communities where crack use was prevalent.
 
2013-04-30 11:56:06 PM  

CPXBRex: For what is worth, many of the first anti-drug laws in the US were really racist in conception. The first drug law in the US that wasn't about alcohol was an 1875 law in San Francisco that criminalized opium dens. Not opium in the form of laudanum, but opium dens. It was directed at the Chinese community in San Francisco and largely passed out of the terrors of miscegenation. They were very concerned that those evil Chinese would use opium to lure white women into debauchery. It wasn't subtle: "within three blocks of the City Hall eight opium smoking establishments, kept by Chinese, for the exclusive use of white men and women; that these places are patronized not only by the vicious and depraved, but are nightly resorted to by young men and women of respectable parentage; (and) that unless this most dangerous species of dissipation can be stopped in its inception, there is great danger that it will become one of the prevalent vices of the city."


Oh dear...those poor young men and women of respectable parentage....I notice that they didn't give a rat's ass, even in 1875, about white trash and other poor folk availing themselves of the evil opium dens.

No, the early drug laws were all about the blacks, yellows, browns and poors....just like today. Only more openly racist/classist. With the caveat, of course, that the stuff you bought from Bayer or a patent medicine company was perfectly okay, just like Mrs. Pinkham's Vegetable Tonic...but poor folk wouldn't be using that stuff anyway.
 
2013-04-30 11:57:05 PM  

CPXBRex: a law not very subtly directed at poor and black communities where crack use was prevalent.


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
you smoke crack don't ya!
 
2013-04-30 11:57:17 PM  

CPXBRex: So, when people say people die of pot, they mean that in the same sense that we also say people die of smoking tobacco or drinking and driving.  Which is normal.


So those people should use clearer language. Simply because someone died while using pot does not mean that pot killed them.
 
2013-05-01 12:01:14 AM  
CPXBRex:

To be fair, i'm sure you're just another "well, i've never really thought about it but i'll hazard an opinion anyway since  nicotine is highly cancerous, so anything else people smoke must be as well because our country would never straight up lie to us" type of fool.

it's not personal, i'd just like our younger readers to know unfounded, mistaken "facts" when they encouter it (often) in their lives. This isn't a time for "both sides are wrong" type of reaction; the nation is becoming fed up with DARE-spawned compulsive liars "protecting" the public health.

Nothing is less healthy than a jail sentence for a sick man dealing with their nasuea the safest, cheapest way possible. Not even smoking!
 
2013-05-01 12:06:06 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Oh dear...those poor young men and women of respectable parentage....I notice that they didn't give a rat's ass, even in 1875, about white trash and other poor folk availing themselves of the evil opium dens.

No, the early drug laws were all about the blacks, yellows, browns and poors....just like today. Only more openly racist/classist. With the caveat, of course, that the stuff you bought from Bayer or a patent medicine company was perfectly okay, just like Mrs. Pinkham's Vegetable Tonic...but poor folk wouldn't be using that stuff anyway.


And nowadays, if you want to circumvent drug laws and you're rich, it just takes a slightly compliant physician.  I recently got off the HMO damage and, whoa, the difference in insurance between poor people HMOs and fairly well-off people's PPOs is *incredible*.  The doctors reach for the strongest stuff first, IME.  I went in for back pain and left with enough OxyContin to floor a rhino.

But poor folks wouldn't be using that stuff, anyway.
 
2013-05-01 12:07:14 AM  

LookForTheArrow: autopsybeverage: LookForTheArrow: Hrist: I actually heard a theory that all the marijuana hating craze back in the day wasn't strictly because of marijuana.  I have a feeling a lot of other things got lumped in with it and not really separated.

AS IN racist stereotypes designed to castigate blacks and hispanics in the early 1900's?

Either that, or hemp production's negative economic influence on a certain large company's investment in wood-based paper production. Corporate lobbyists aren't a new thing.

WHY NOT BO... aw, you know

(the racism thing is documented, good read here: http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Drugs-Stone-Stoned/dp/089281826 3)


Yeah, it's a "¿Por que no las dos?" Issue to be sure. I'll have to check that book out when I have time. Another reason would be that improvisational jazz is really just awful music.
 
2013-05-01 12:07:35 AM  

mjbok: [encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 256x144]
you smoke crack don't ya!


There's a great line in the movie Bob Roberts.  It's about a corrupt conservative politician who lies, cheats and steals his way into office.  At one point, Bob Roberts advises some youths, "Don't do crack.  It's a ghetto drug."  Wickedly funny, if you like that kind of thing.
 
2013-05-01 12:25:24 AM  

CPXBRex: There's a great line in the movie Bob Roberts. It's about a corrupt conservative politician who lies, cheats and steals his way into office. At one point, Bob Roberts advises some youths, "Don't do crack. It's a ghetto drug." Wickedly funny, if you like that kind of thing.


It's a movie I saw when it first came out and I was disappointed at the time because I was expecting something as brilliant as The Player (Robbins again).  The thing I remember vaguely was him in a wheelchair and he was tapping his foot because the wheelchair was a charade, is that right?
 
2013-05-01 12:25:40 AM  
But marijuana IS a prescription drug. Are you saying you want oxycodone, methotrexate, fluoxetine, and morphine available without prescription? Or are you ok with the current situation where you need a prescription for all of these (marijuana included) in most states?  In the case of the latter, I'm not sure why you brought up other prescription drugs.
 
2013-05-01 12:47:30 AM  

4seasons85!: lewismarktwo: adenosine: Jument: Either way, you shouldn't be smoking anywhere in an apartment complex. Even if it's perfectly legal, it's a way stronger smell than cigarette smoke.

No, cigs smell way worse. My neighbors partake on occasion late at night and they are nothing compared to the prior guys that would smoke cigs. The main problem I have is that there is no way for me to lawfully buy some so I can join in on the fun.

Yep, cigs are way worse and smell permeates and lingers unlike cannabis.

Hell, I used to vape cannabis (even less smelly than smoking) when I had a strait edge roommate that claimed she could 'always smell it, every time, even on clothes afterwards'.  She was clueless.  I know because she would definitely have lectured me if she knew.

Also, driving while high on cannabis is simply not a real problem, but it is the new 'hey whoa, let's not let people just use cannabis freely' talkingpoint campaign.

I'm honestly curious why you don't think driving while high on pot is a problem. No snark. I have heard others say that and this is my biggest concern when it comes to legalizing pot. I lost a friend to a drunk driver so I am worried this will mean more impaired people on the road.


If your biggest concern when it comes to legalizing pot is high drivers then you needn't worry.  Because... plenty of people are driving high right now!  It happens constantly and you pass one every day you drive.  Cannabis is like 70% of Mexican cartel business right?  But you hear of 'The Emerald Triangle' and 'BC bud' and people getting busted for grow ops and trafficking ALL DAMN DAY.  America loves it's weed.

So many use cannabis it is ridiculous.  And because this is Merica, they drive.  All making it legal will do is legitimize it's use, shed light on it and make it easier for people who want to quit to quit.  Oh and make prices come down, which is why the cartels and dealers and current entrenched growers DON'T want it legalized.

Anyway, I'm sure some people shouldn't take a hit and drive, but the vast majority of seasoned tokers can handle their shiat behind the wheel.  It's just not that hard.  And if you get really stoned.. you simply don't have the 'giveafarktitude' to need to be anywhere than right where you are, with your bag of simply delicious stale croutons.

shiat, if reaction time was that important we wouldn't let anyone over the age of 50 behind the wheel.
 
2013-05-01 12:49:43 AM  

Bisu: But marijuana IS a prescription drug. Are you saying you want oxycodone, methotrexate, fluoxetine, and morphine available without prescription? Or are you ok with the current situation where you need a prescription for all of these (marijuana included) in most states?  In the case of the latter, I'm not sure why you brought up other prescription drugs.


that'd be a start!!

(truth: we want drug licenses where you apply for a license to use a substance as a medical choice, not prescriptions which are nothing more than money grabs by small minded docs that dont even read the inserts.. infact, with the addictive drugs you mention, the doctors get you hooked on it worse than dealers!! they have every incentive to get you hooked then watch you fry if you dont pay up. Licenses circumvent this.)

(YES: Drug licenses NO: Drug prescriptions!)
 
2013-05-01 12:54:10 AM  
How many parents saw this story and dragged their kid into the computer room and said "SEE???"
 
2013-05-01 01:01:03 AM  

FatherChaos: How many parents saw this story and dragged their kid into the computer room and said "SEE???"


and how many children used common sense and thought but it wasn't the pot that killed him it was the sudden stop at the end of his fall cause he was a freaking idiot.

and as a second part there has not been a coroners report ssaying what all was in this guys system besides possibly pot (article does not state that pot was found on scene) since no further details have been released besides the moron jumped about 70 feet to his death when cops showed up
 
2013-05-01 01:04:52 AM  

TheJoe03: CPXBRex: About 1% of all traffic accidents can be attributed to cannabis use.

So it's not a big problem then.


There were 36,000 traffic fatalities in the US last year.  By your math, 360 are because of marijuana use.  So I guess that blows the whole "pot doesn't kill people" theory.
 
2013-05-01 01:09:01 AM  

mjbok: It's a movie I saw when it first came out and I was disappointed at the time because I was expecting something as brilliant as The Player (Robbins again).  The thing I remember vaguely was him in a wheelchair and he was tapping his foot because the wheelchair was a charade, is that right?


Yeah, that's the movie and, yeah, it was different than The Player.  I think, in some ways, Bob Roberts is better because I like that style of movie quite a bit, but how can I think ill of someone who admires The Player?  ;)
 
2013-05-01 01:09:16 AM  

ladyfortuna: What about deaths by car crash or heavy equipment? I doubt authorities make much of them, but I have to imagine it does happen.

I don't care if people want to get high, I care if they're driving during/after.


Those are due to the vehicles, heavy equipment, and/or dumbassery.

It's never the drug's fault, you see.
 
2013-05-01 01:16:05 AM  

Jument: Ego edo infantia cattus: Dafatone: So uh... what cause did the cops have to enter?  You mean if I call up cops and tell them that my neighbor is getting high, they'll bust in?

Yep. Then they just say the smelled it in the hallway when they went to check out the complaint.

You may not be aware of this but the smell is really farking strong so yeah they probably did and if it's not legal in your state then yeah, the law says they should be arresting someone for possession.

Either way, you shouldn't be smoking anywhere in an apartment complex. Even if it's perfectly legal, it's a way stronger smell than cigarette smoke.


Unless you blow your hits out through a toilet paper tube stuffed with dryer sheets. Or so I've heard.
 
2013-05-01 01:16:17 AM  

Bisu: But marijuana IS a prescription drug. Are you saying you want oxycodone, methotrexate, fluoxetine, and morphine available without prescription? Or are you ok with the current situation where you need a prescription for all of these (marijuana included) in most states?  In the case of the latter, I'm not sure why you brought up other prescription drugs.


I think this is directed at me.  In most places, cannabis is simply illegal.  In a few states, like California, you can get a card from a physician to buy cannabis at a dispensary, which is not the same as a prescription drug.  In Colorado, it's just legal to own up to an ounce or have six plants.  But, overwhelmingly, in the US, it is simply illegal and nowhere is it a prescription drug.

Synthetic THC, on the other hand, is a schedule three drug and you can get a script for it, albeit I've never known anyone to do so.  But it's theoretically possible.

My point, though, was not that any particular prescription drug should be made available without prescription, but that if a person has good enough insurance they can find a compliant doctor willing to give them powerful narcotics for minor "problems".

That said, I think the drug war is a giant mess, a costly failure that is far worse than any problems it hopes to cure in terms of both human suffering and expenses to the people.  We would be far better off decriminalizing drugs and having sensible policies for treatment of addiction and harm reduction.  But in that OTHER post, I wasn't saying this, I was just saying if you have nifty insurance it's easy to get powerful narcotics.
 
2013-05-01 01:31:00 AM  

lewismarktwo: 4seasons85!: lewismarktwo: adenosine: Jument: Either way, you shouldn't be smoking anywhere in an apartment complex. Even if it's perfectly legal, it's a way stronger smell than cigarette smoke.

No, cigs smell way worse. My neighbors partake on occasion late at night and they are nothing compared to the prior guys that would smoke cigs. The main problem I have is that there is no way for me to lawfully buy some so I can join in on the fun.

Yep, cigs are way worse and smell permeates and lingers unlike cannabis.

Hell, I used to vape cannabis (even less smelly than smoking) when I had a strait edge roommate that claimed she could 'always smell it, every time, even on clothes afterwards'.  She was clueless.  I know because she would definitely have lectured me if she knew.

Also, driving while high on cannabis is simply not a real problem, but it is the new 'hey whoa, let's not let people just use cannabis freely' talkingpoint campaign.

I'm honestly curious why you don't think driving while high on pot is a problem. No snark. I have heard others say that and this is my biggest concern when it comes to legalizing pot. I lost a friend to a drunk driver so I am worried this will mean more impaired people on the road.

If your biggest concern when it comes to legalizing pot is high drivers then you needn't worry.  Because... plenty of people are driving high right now!  It happens constantly and you pass one every day you drive.  Cannabis is like 70% of Mexican cartel business right?  But you hear of 'The Emerald Triangle' and 'BC bud' and people getting busted for grow ops and trafficking ALL DAMN DAY.  America loves it's weed.

So many use cannabis it is ridiculous.  And because this is Merica, they drive.  All making it legal will do is legitimize it's use, shed light on it and make it easier for people who want to quit to quit.  Oh and make prices come down, which is why the cartels and dealers and current entrenched growers DON'T want it legalized.

Anyway, I'm su ...


Well, my question vis a vis "driving while impaired" is one of experience. There is no doubt that driving under the influence of anything that alters your reaction time, whether it is cough syrup, cannabis, booze or heroin, is a bad idea; and equally no doubt that tens of thousands of people do it every single day...and with that in mind, how much of the deadly results of drunk and/or buzzed driving are due to either a) massive overimbibing (like people who insist on driving with a BAC of 50 proof) and thus are obviously a menace to us all, or b) youth and inexperience with their limits of driving while slightly drunk.

After all, driving safely at all takes some practice (which is why 45-year olds in general are safer drivers than 20-year olds), so it makes sense that a slightly drunk 45-year old is still going to be a better driver than a slightly drunk 20-year old, just because they've had more practice. So wouldn't it be likely that stoned drivers with less experience = stoned drivers in accidents not because of the pot but because of their lack of practice? Unless they're SO baked they sat at the light for half an hour because it kept changing colors, man, and they needed it to stay green so they could drive through.
 
2013-05-01 01:37:27 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: TheJoe03: CPXBRex: About 1% of all traffic accidents can be attributed to cannabis use.

So it's not a big problem then.

There were 36,000 traffic fatalities in the US last year.  By your math, 360 are because of marijuana use.  So I guess that blows the whole "pot doesn't kill people" theory.


Not my math and dude said they were traffic accidents, not fatalities. Seems certain people are reaching really hard to justify their shiatty views on marijuana.
 
2013-05-01 01:46:55 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com

So smoking weed can't kill, but smoking cigarettes can? You can't really OD on cigarettes either.

I am fine with smoking a little pot, but not just making shiat up to defend it.
 
2013-05-01 01:49:01 AM  
My previous post was a response to:

 

fusillade762: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x459]


(if that wasn't obvious)
 
2013-05-01 01:51:48 AM  

ladyfortuna: It didn't occur to me the first time I looked at this, but I once met someone who was bipolar and went off his meds and decided to smoke some pot because it was his birthday. I was interning with a police department and the apartment complex security called the PD up to handle it (rightly so, in my opinion). He was extremely mellow and I doubt he was a threat, but when the officers asked him the date and his address, he couldn't answer. Inability to answer those questions would scare the hell out of me. We ended up taking him to the hospital as a precaution; I suspect his wife who came home in the middle of all the excitement probably read him the riot act later...


He went off his meds. But you decided pot was the problem.
 
2013-05-01 01:52:47 AM  

ElFugawz: [25.media.tumblr.com image 318x291]

So smoking weed can't kill, but smoking cigarettes can? You can't really OD on cigarettes either.

I am fine with smoking a little pot, but not just making shiat up to defend it.


There is no evidence that smoking cannabis causes mortality.  In fact, it is shown to reduce blood flow to tumors, starving them and killing them.  Smoking does hurt you cilia and can make pulmonary infections slightly more likely, but the effect is easily reversed with stopping smoking and using a vaporizer / eating it. Or quitting it.  Which is really easy to do.
 
2013-05-01 01:54:23 AM  

lesliessexxy: Dafatone: So uh... what cause did the cops have to enter?  You mean if I call up cops and tell them that my neighbor is getting high, they'll bust in?

I'm not sure, but three weeks ago my neighbors called the cops on us, saying that they heard arguing and then a female yell "Don't get the gun!"

When they pounded on my door, I opened it a crack to find 6 barrels of guns in my face.  I got pulled outside and they let themselves in while they were yelling "DID YOU CALL THE POLICE?! WHO ELSE IS IN THE HOUSE?!" and generally police-stating my ass.

So, maybe they can claim "probable cause"?


You really need to gag the biatch.
 
2013-05-01 01:57:19 AM  

SlothB77: Only on fark do people believe no one has died from marijuana.


Only totalfarkheads believe anyone has. You are a moron. Your $5/month does not change that fact.
 
2013-05-01 01:59:37 AM  

The Muthaship: I like hard drug users, they have the decency to OD once in a while.  Pot heads just soak up resources forever.


Another totalfarkhead. How much did you give to Rimjob this month?
 
2013-05-01 01:59:55 AM  
He never would have felt the need to jump to his death if his state had legalized weed.
 
2013-05-01 02:00:10 AM  

ElFugawz: So smoking weed can't kill, but smoking cigarettes can? You can't really OD on cigarettes either.

I am fine with smoking a little pot, but not just making shiat up to defend it.


You can easily OD from nicotine and weed smoke has yet to be linked to cancer, so you actually are making shiat up.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report