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.

(Huffington Post)   Informative animated graphic representation of all of the people who have died from marijuana overdoses   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 152
    More: Amusing, CIA inspector general, Rob Moore, Denver Police Department, Florida Times-Union, Colorado State Senators, North Georgia, Atlanta Police Department, Georgia Bureau of Investigation  
•       •       •

3664 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Sep 2013 at 1:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-04 11:57:24 AM
Those are some horrifying numbers.
 
2013-09-04 12:24:49 PM
Scientific facts don't matter. The war on drugs specifically rejects objective reality and hard scientific fact. We hate cannabis because hippies are morally and spiritually weak and addicts just need to be smacked around a bit to sober them up enough to be useful. Facts be damned, we're at WAR here people!
 
2013-09-04 01:19:58 PM

Weaver95: The war on drugs specifically rejects objective reality and hard scientific fact.


It's called "cultural truth" If enough of someone's peers believe something -no matter how ludicrous, then there is intense pressure for that person to accept it as true.  Because pot smokers are maligned -to view anything sympathetic to them or their cause is heretical.
 
2013-09-04 01:28:20 PM
Getting pandas stoned is wrong, man. Just plain wrong. Pass the bamboo....
 
2013-09-04 01:29:04 PM
That's not funny, my brother died from shooting up the weed.
 
2013-09-04 01:29:28 PM
I wonder how many Farkers would ignore the lung cancer stats linked to cigarette smoke. Marijuana smoke is carcinogenic and as such as led to deaths.
 
2013-09-04 01:29:36 PM
The prohibition on marijuana has little to do with science or medicine, and all to do with racism against Hispanics, the Chinese, and Blacks in the early 20th century.
 
2013-09-04 01:30:48 PM

hardinparamedic: The prohibition on marijuana has little to do with science or medicine, and all to do with racism against Hispanics, the Chinese, and Blacks in the early 20th century.


It's also a great reason to militarize the police and wage a war against the general populace.
 
2013-09-04 01:31:41 PM
I love the "People Killed by the War on Drugs" slideshow at the bottom.
 
2013-09-04 01:31:46 PM

Aristocles: Marijuana smoke is carcinogenic


Nope. Cannabinoids kill cancer cells, or more accurately, cause cancer cells to kill themselves.
 
2013-09-04 01:31:47 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: Weaver95: The war on drugs specifically rejects objective reality and hard scientific fact.

It's called "cultural truth" If enough of someone's peers believe something -no matter how ludicrous, then there is intense pressure for that person to accept it as true.  Because pot smokers are maligned -to view anything sympathetic to them or their cause is heretical.


I don't believe this at all, but I only have 26 minutes to get to church so I can't argue with you.
 
2013-09-04 01:32:26 PM

Weaver95: Scientific facts don't matter. The war on drugs specifically rejects objective reality and hard scientific fact. We hate cannabis because hippies are morally and spiritually weak and addicts just need to be smacked around a bit to sober them up enough to be useful. Facts be damned, we're at WAR here people!


No, we use that as an excuse.

The real reason for continued prohibition and illegality is still based on economic reasons. Timber, paper and cotton interests are terrified of legality. Drug companies are likewise fueling the "debate" because all of them fear competition. Law enforcement loves the extra funding and the extra arrests that they can chalk up to pot arrests and seizures, as well as the under the table skim, and the extra pressure that they can exert on folks to get them to roll over on their fellows, and the assignment of its classification as such a high tier offense means lots of leverage.

It's not illegal because it's terrible and horrible. It's illegal because it competes with interests that really dislike competition. It's illegal because otherwise it would be cheap, with fairly easy access, and would lead folks to possibly abandon or cut in on industries that really don't want to share a market.

The rest of the bullsh*t is just so much justification and narrative. It has always been about the economics of hemp and a cheap intoxicant. Nothing more, nothing less, and folks have been willing to ruin lives on keeping the bullsh*t myth of "danger" as opposed to just admitting that they don't want to share a market with a cheap and relatively easy to cultivate crop.
 
2013-09-04 01:32:43 PM

Aristocles: I wonder how many Farkers would ignore the lung cancer stats linked to cigarette smoke. Marijuana smoke is carcinogenic and as such as led to deaths.


I don't think even the biggest stoner is going to smoke a pack-and-a-half's worth of pot a day, every day.
 
2013-09-04 01:32:53 PM
Because People in power are Stupid:It's also a great reason to militarize the police and wage a war against the general populace.

Wat.

If you're going for "militarizing the police", you might want to start with the Colonial Militias as the root of your problems. It goes back far beyond the "war on drugs".
 
2013-09-04 01:33:53 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Aristocles: Marijuana smoke is carcinogenic

Nope. Cannabinoids kill cancer cells, or more accurately, cause cancer cells to kill themselves.


That's not the same as mary-jane smoke.
 
2013-09-04 01:35:14 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Aristocles: Marijuana smoke is carcinogenic

Nope. Cannabinoids kill cancer cells, or more accurately, cause cancer cells to kill themselves.


That's a gross oversimplification.

In vitro. In vitro does not translate to in vivo. Sulfuric Acid kills cancer cells in vitro, as well. While studies have shown that people who smoke Marijuana do have decreased risks of cancer, they still have the same pathologies which lead to lung and bronchial cancer, and emphysema, namely chronic remodeling of airway cilia and mucus producing goblet cells, as well as decreased elasticity of lung tissue.

So yes, you still have the same risk ANY TIME you inhale products of combustion.

Get a nebulizer/vaporizer, or enjoy a brownie.
 
2013-09-04 01:35:26 PM

downstairs: Aristocles: I wonder how many Farkers would ignore the lung cancer stats linked to cigarette smoke. Marijuana smoke is carcinogenic and as such as led to deaths.

I don't think even the biggest stoner is going to smoke a pack-and-a-half's worth of pot a day, every day.


You must not know that one's tolerance to doobies rapidly increases to dangerous levels within mere days of continued abuse.
 
2013-09-04 01:35:34 PM
We get it, pot isn't harmful. But the idea that if we magically legalize it, sell it, and tax it drug lords will cease to exist because there will be no one asking for pot from illegal dealers. Once you make pot a commodity you expose it to market forces, and the cost of taxed pot will never be lower than illegal pot. It's that simple.
 
2013-09-04 01:35:37 PM

Aristocles: That's not the same as mary-jane smoke.


Still wrong.

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." Link
 
2013-09-04 01:37:19 PM

hardinparamedic: So yes, you still have the same risk ANY TIME you inhale products of combustion.

Get a nebulizer/vaporizer, or enjoy a brownie.


Absolutely. I'm not claiming there are zero negative effects of inhaling smoke, just that the comparisons to cigarette smoke are not valid.
 
2013-09-04 01:38:24 PM

Outrageous Muff: We get it, pot isn't harmful. But the idea that if we magically legalize it, sell it, and tax it drug lords will cease to exist because there will be no one asking for pot from illegal dealers. Once you make pot a commodity you expose it to market forces, and the cost of taxed pot will never be lower than illegal pot. It's that simple.


Which then becomes a tax issue, and may actually get hippies to demonize the dang 'Revennoors!
 
2013-09-04 01:39:40 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Aristocles: That's not the same as mary-jane smoke.

Still wrong.

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." Link


You do realize that tobacco was once advertised as "physician approved," right?
 
2013-09-04 01:39:59 PM
Anyone else find it funny that those are bears repeating the same action over and over in a gif?
 
2013-09-04 01:40:38 PM

Aristocles: You do realize that tobacco was once advertised as "physician approved," right?


Which has what to do with you being wrong?
 
2013-09-04 01:40:40 PM

Aristocles: I wonder how many Farkers would ignore the lung cancer stats linked to cigarette smoke. Marijuana smoke is carcinogenic and as such as led to deaths.


That's why you should spring for a decent vaporizer, you cheap bastard.
 
2013-09-04 01:40:49 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: That's not funny, my brother died from shooting up the weed.


Well duh, everyone knows you have to snort it.  Although I did hear a story about how Stevie Nicks and Mick Jagger stuck it up their asses when they couldn't find a bong.
 
2013-09-04 01:40:59 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Aristocles: That's not the same as mary-jane smoke.

Still wrong.

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." Link


Like I said...you can smack people around with facts all day long and it STILL won't matter.
 
2013-09-04 01:41:45 PM

hubiestubert: Which then becomes a tax issue, and may actually get hippies to demonize the dang 'Revennoors!


So you'd still have a war on drugs, just under a different section of the government. Man, you've solved that War on Drugs didn't ya.
 
2013-09-04 01:41:51 PM

Weaver95: Scientific facts don't matter. The war on drugs specifically rejects objective reality and hard scientific fact. We hate cannabis because hippies are morally and spiritually weak and addicts just need to be smacked around a bit to sober them up enough to be useful. Facts be damned, we're at WAR here people!


BTW: I recognize the post was meant to be humorous and my previous post may be taken as an attack upon it, as opposed to a springboard to counter the usual jackassery that results in these threads. I hope no offense was taken for that. ;)
 
2013-09-04 01:41:52 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Aristocles: You do realize that tobacco was once advertised as "physician approved," right?

Which has what to do with you being wrong?


I'm not wrong. You're being duped by Big Bud and you're too high to realize you're poisoning yourself.
 
2013-09-04 01:41:53 PM

Aristocles: You must not know that one's tolerance to doobies rapidly increases to dangerous levels within mere days of continued abuse


Well that explains all the overdose deaths then.
 
2013-09-04 01:42:51 PM

Outrageous Muff: We get it, pot isn't harmful. But the idea that if we magically legalize it, sell it, and tax it drug lords will cease to exist because there will be no one asking for pot from illegal dealers. Once you make pot a commodity you expose it to market forces, and the cost of taxed pot will never be lower than illegal pot. It's that simple.


Which is why we have an international shooting war over cigarettes and whiskey.

Oh, wait... We don't. There's illegal trade in cigarettes but it's nothing resembling the chaos of the drug war. Even if marijuana is taxed to the hilt, legalization places a rigid ceiling on the black market. It's not like this is hazy political theory, we have seen this in action repeatedly across the world.
 
2013-09-04 01:43:14 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Aristocles: You do realize that tobacco was once advertised as "physician approved," right?

Which has what to do with you being wrong?


He has to change the subject. Facts prove him wrong and he knows it. So...change the subject, or go on the offensive and attack the data or the person who provided the data. That's the most common tactic in this situation. Eventually he will get to flat out denial and just puking up propaganda on the thread.
 
2013-09-04 01:43:28 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Aristocles: You must not know that one's tolerance to doobies rapidly increases to dangerous levels within mere days of continued abuse

Well that explains all the overdose deaths then.


The "overdose" stat is a red herring, the real danger lies in the lung cancer smoking herb causes.
 
2013-09-04 01:43:39 PM

Aristocles: You do realize that tobacco was once advertised as "physician approved," right?


Physicians on the payroll of big tobacco. You act like it's only in the last 40 years we've known that smoking causes heart disease, COPD, cancer, and stroke.
 
2013-09-04 01:44:38 PM

Aristocles: I'm not wrong.


No, you are. You can't admit it, I get it.
 
2013-09-04 01:45:40 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Aristocles: You do realize that tobacco was once advertised as "physician approved," right?

Which has what to do with you being wrong?


img.pandawhale.com
 
2013-09-04 01:45:54 PM

Aristocles: Dusk-You-n-Me: Aristocles: You do realize that tobacco was once advertised as "physician approved," right?

Which has what to do with you being wrong?

I'm not wrong. You're being duped by Big Bud and you're too high to realize you're poisoning yourself.


You're a moron. Or a troll. But I repeat myself.
 
2013-09-04 01:45:55 PM
Another thread ruined by Aristocles. He's good at his job, I'll give him that.
 
2013-09-04 01:45:59 PM

hubiestubert: Weaver95: Scientific facts don't matter. The war on drugs specifically rejects objective reality and hard scientific fact. We hate cannabis because hippies are morally and spiritually weak and addicts just need to be smacked around a bit to sober them up enough to be useful. Facts be damned, we're at WAR here people!

No, we use that as an excuse.

The real reason for continued prohibition and illegality is still based on economic reasons. Timber, paper and cotton interests are terrified of legality. Drug companies are likewise fueling the "debate" because all of them fear competition. Law enforcement loves the extra funding and the extra arrests that they can chalk up to pot arrests and seizures, as well as the under the table skim, and the extra pressure that they can exert on folks to get them to roll over on their fellows, and the assignment of its classification as such a high tier offense means lots of leverage.

It's not illegal because it's terrible and horrible. It's illegal because it competes with interests that really dislike competition. It's illegal because otherwise it would be cheap, with fairly easy access, and would lead folks to possibly abandon or cut in on industries that really don't want to share a market.

The rest of the bullsh*t is just so much justification and narrative. It has always been about the economics of hemp and a cheap intoxicant. Nothing more, nothing less, and folks have been willing to ruin lives on keeping the bullsh*t myth of "danger" as opposed to just admitting that they don't want to share a market with a cheap and relatively easy to cultivate crop.


That brings up and interesting question. Are Washington and Colorado going to be able to grow pot/hemp now for agricultural reasons, such as paper and rope? Or is it strictly for smoking? Also, are those currently in jail for pot offenses going to be released?
 
2013-09-04 01:46:15 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Aristocles: That's not the same as mary-jane smoke.

Still wrong.

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." Link


Well, THAT'S inconvenient! ;^)
 
2013-09-04 01:46:22 PM
I thought I read something a few years ago about a guy in Britain who died after smoking six pounds in an hour or so.
 
2013-09-04 01:46:42 PM

Weaver95: Dusk-You-n-Me: Aristocles: You do realize that tobacco was once advertised as "physician approved," right?

Which has what to do with you being wrong?

He has to change the subject. Facts prove him wrong and he knows it. So...change the subject, or go on the offensive and attack the data or the person who provided the data. That's the most common tactic in this situation. Eventually he will get to flat out denial and just puking up propaganda on the thread.


Check out these facts:

Chronic marijuana use and higher dosages are found to correlate to greater incidence of psychosis and schizophrenia. This point is particularly significant due to the increases in drug potency over the last two decades. While the average potency has risen from 3% THC (tetrahydrocannabinol - the intoxicating ingredient in marijuana) a couple of decades ago to 9% now, there are some samples of weed that measure as high as 25%. These premium strains are normally grown hydroponically, are often smuggled in from Canada and demand a higher price than commercial-grade marijuana from Mexico.

It's not going to be easy to defend this toxin.
 
2013-09-04 01:46:46 PM

downstairs: Aristocles: I wonder how many Farkers would ignore the lung cancer stats linked to cigarette smoke. Marijuana smoke is carcinogenic and as such as led to deaths.

I don't think even the biggest stoner is going to smoke a pack-and-a-half's worth of pot a day, every day.


Then try to balance this with alcohol related deaths and the mj policies start to look even more ridiculous.
 
2013-09-04 01:47:16 PM

Aristocles: Marcus Aurelius: Aristocles: You must not know that one's tolerance to doobies rapidly increases to dangerous levels within mere days of continued abuse

Well that explains all the overdose deaths then.

The "overdose" stat is a red herring, the real danger lies in the lung cancer smoking herb causes.


That's why you should use a good vaporizer.  All smoke is bad for the lungs.
 
2013-09-04 01:47:58 PM

Aristocles: Farkers


So you advocate a War on Cigarettes?  All smokers should be put in jail?  If not, what are you getting at?
I have never smoked or used recreational drugs, but every time I hear about people somehow thinking that the drugs manufactured by Pfizer et al are so much better than weed, it makes me think they are stupid or shills, or both.

Either you have a war on all sin - death penalty for cigarettes, booze, drugs - or you let it go.  The middle ground just creates more stupidity and people with money wanting to have the stupidity continue.
 
2013-09-04 01:48:12 PM

Outrageous Muff: hubiestubert: Which then becomes a tax issue, and may actually get hippies to demonize the dang 'Revennoors!

So you'd still have a war on drugs, just under a different section of the government. Man, you've solved that War on Drugs didn't ya.


As much as we've quashed that moonshine and illegal stills.

There ARE nasty things out there. Meth, coke, heroin, and more. We can shift a lot more resources to those, and actually see revenue generated, jobs, and tax money come in to states with legalization. We can see a bit of the incipient corruption phase itself out too. More dollars to focus on the stuff that is truly ugly, as opposed to using pot as an excuse to pump up arrest records and conviction records. Not to mention saving money in our courts and on our prisons.

Focus on the important stuff, or keep wasting money. I am still Conservative enough to want to see public dollars spent effectively. So sue me.
 
2013-09-04 01:48:13 PM

Aristocles: the real danger lies in the lung cancer smoking herb causes


I'd love for you to point me to the peer reviewed study that comes to that conclusion.
 
2013-09-04 01:48:27 PM
Link

We actually have a real problem with people being killed from smoking things, just not marijuana.
 
2013-09-04 01:48:43 PM
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report