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.

(Yahoo)   Researchers report they still can't find a good reason to not smoke marijuana   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 825
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

32502 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 May 2004 at 6:39 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



825 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-05-18 03:40:47 PM
itsfiveoclock

So why do you hate potsmokers anyway? Did one of them steal your girlfriend?

Cause, overall, we're a pretty likeable bunch.
 
2004-05-18 03:40:52 PM
Just Ignorant: Been waiting for someone to say I'm being circular. Actually, I'm just putting the burden of proof on the person who thinks the law is wrong. Making you prove your case is far from circular reasoning.

Here are my hobbies, just in case you want to see if they are at risk of being declared illegal:

Camping
reading
Canoeing
Horseback riding
Fence Building (that's more like work, but I have a good time doing it)
sporting Clays

I have others, but those are the main ones.
 
2004-05-18 03:42:25 PM
sprting clays involve guns

/guns are bad mmkkaayy
 
2004-05-18 03:43:14 PM
Did I say I hate pot smokers? I don't remember that. In fact, I said I know a few.

I hate people who use various excuses such as "anxiety" as an excuse to get high, and I hate people who get busted and cry about it. That's all. The rest of you are fine, even if you are a bit uptight on this issue. Several of you should smoke a fatty and relax.
 
2004-05-18 03:43:28 PM
its5
I don't have to justify anything, I'm saying the law should stand. If you want to change the law, you have to justify your positions. You have yet to do that for me.

No way am I going to spend all day relaying various studies, surveys, etc, for you. Go read drugpolicy.org. Then rent Grass.
Explain why you think the law should stand? Or is it that you're just so law-abiding and entrenched in your views that you can't comprehend a law being wrong? Because, really, "reading comprehension" is a pretty lame argument.

I swear, there's always one in a pot thread.
 
2004-05-18 03:44:08 PM
Itsfiveoclocksomewhere

what exactly would it take to create your 'burden of proof,' per se?

Personally, i'm seeing someone with a bias blaming others for not having an open mind and waiting for proof, which will obviously never come because of the bias. So please, tell me, what are you looking for, proof-wise?
 
2004-05-18 03:44:45 PM
itsfiveoclocksomewhere


sugarlarry: I don't have to justify anything, I'm saying the law should stand. If you want to change the law, you have to justify your positions.


Ummm, people have, have you been reading this thread at all?

And if you can't give a good reason it should be illegal, other than "well, it is", maybe we should re-examine why it's ilegal...


AND, from what I can recall, just about everytime it's put to a popular vote, the vote is pro-marijuana, it's just NONE of our politicians will take that stand...
 
2004-05-18 03:45:20 PM
Raphon: How so? They're shotguns, not any form of rifle or pistol, and they have never ever been the target of a weapons ban.

My right to own a gun is mentioned in the Constitution and is also given to be by various state and federal laws. Your ability to smoke pot is in fact prohibited by various state and federal laws.
 
2004-05-18 03:46:19 PM
5 o'clock:

Did I say I hate pot smokers? I don't remember that. In fact, I said I know a few.

My point was that I rely on my inherent bias against pot smoking and pot smokers,


yes, you did
 
2004-05-18 03:46:38 PM
Wait, I missed something here. Why, in a friendly civilized internet discussion, is the burden of proof entirely on the person who says a questionable law should be changed, and not the person who says it should stay the same?
 
2004-05-18 03:48:02 PM
I second that emotion, Bf+.... FREE TOMMY CHONG, throw fricking John Ashcroft in jail instead



(click me)
 
2004-05-18 03:48:27 PM
There's weemill.

I don't know man, all I know is it hasn't been met yet.

KyngNothing: Well, they recently tried it in California and it passed, but the feds shut it down. So maybe the vote will go your way.

Too bad not many pot heads vote...

/cause I love to see what the flame bait will reel in
 
2004-05-18 03:49:21 PM
bias dosn't mean hate... he has no respect for us because of his misgiuded views... but than again my respect for him has been dropping stedialy.
 
2004-05-18 03:49:52 PM
5oclock

I'd say Camping, Canoeing, and Horseback Riding will at least become more restricted in coming years. Already I've been grilled by some MP's for snorkeling near an Air Force Base. A couple of years ago, I went hiking in the woods (public woods, by the way) near my hometown and, upon my return to the car, found a policeman. A neighbor hadn't liked the looks of my vehicle apparently, and I was detained until a check was run on my record, to see if I had any warrents against me.

All I could think of was old 80s movies showing the Soviets demanding "VERE ARE YOUR PAPERS?"
 
2004-05-18 03:50:10 PM
Kyng: Well, I make exceptions for a few of them. You're not so bad.

droogmilk: You want to change something, you have to prove why it should bechanged. That's just the way it is.
 
2004-05-18 03:50:12 PM
The potheads in this state are the most likely people to vote.

But then again, we're not very mainstream.
 
2004-05-18 03:51:10 PM
In case you've missed it, I don't actually smoke, and doubt I would take it up if it became legal, i already spend enough money on Scotch...
 
2004-05-18 03:51:13 PM
I think you do have to justify putting hundreds of thousands of people behind bars for something that study after study proves to be mostly harmless.

Fortunately I live in Canada, and it looks like we are moving towards legalization. A bill to decriminalize (which would suck) is failing, so there is an excellent chance we'll revisit the issue in a few more years. Our Senate has already put forth the notion that we go for outright legalization. Unfortunately this doesn't sit well with our own Rightwingers who like your Rightwingers believe in all sorts of wack things that have no basis in fact or reason.

Ah well... what are a few more million causalties before people finally wake up and see that the drug war is a complete farce, and that it pisses in the face of liberty?
 
2004-05-18 03:52:29 PM
itsfiveoclocksomewhere

Yes, if we were government officials arguing, I'd agree entirely. But, since we're all just a bunch of losers on fark.com with not much else better to do, what IS exactly your reasoning for keeping the law?
 
2004-05-18 03:53:10 PM
btw, why is it assumed that since I'm pro-gay marriage and pro-legalization of pot that I'm a gay stoner?

/neither, not that there's anything wrong with that...
 
2004-05-18 03:53:21 PM
the basis of this country was supposed to be freedom first... somthing shouldn't be illegal without reasoning. Simaler to "the burden of proof" in legal matters you should have to prove it should be illegal not us prove it shouldn't.
 
2004-05-18 03:53:33 PM
BF+ was alluding to the potential that your hobbies that are currently legal may become illegal if the wrong people come into power. Marijuana was legal at one time in America. Gun ownership is currently legal in America. Gun control is a topic of heated debate. Ergo, you're hobby of owning and shooting shotguns is in jeopardy (albeit miniscule) of one day being taken from you if the wrong people come into power.

If I'd said that about marijuana 50 years ago, I'd be crazy. If I'd said that about marijuana 100 years ago, I'd be insane. If I'd said that 200 years ago, I'd be a heretic.
 
2004-05-18 03:55:48 PM
I agree that the burden of proof should be on the person in favor of the law.

After all, people were smoking pot freely until the law was enacted. Why was the law enacted? Most all evidence points to profiteering in the paper industry.

It's been held in place since, via the massive propaganda machine (which obviously works wonders on little kids like 5oclock), the population thinks that incarcerating thousands of innocent people is somehow a GOOD thing.

So prove to me why it SHOULD be illegal, 5oclock.

I've already mentioned Thomas Jefferson, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You need to have some BIG guns to shoot those concepts down.

Let's see em.
 
2004-05-18 03:57:21 PM
its5

okay, please go read this.

Otherwise, I think you're getting a childish thrill out of being an admitted troll.
 
2004-05-18 03:59:35 PM
At least the guncontrol people can point to 30,000 gun related deaths per year when they seek to put limits on your liberty. Anti-pot people can't point to a single dope-related death (unless we are talking about those kids in the commercial who smoke dope and play with guns).

How is this at all reasonable?
 
2004-05-18 04:01:37 PM
Kurst_Putz

People tend to achieve less and do less because they are happier. Why does anyone do anything? Because they have to? Sometimes, but mostly because the end result is something they desire: music::enjoyment; Sports::it's fun; Camping::Also fun; Work::Money-and everything it buys;

And oh, heaven forbid people spend their lives being HAPPY. So what if someone else "achieves" "less" than you think they ought to? Who are you to tell them how much to achieve? What is so wrong with being happy with very little?

"Hey- YOU - Stop being so happy! Get to work!!"

Why are so many people hung up on being miserable their whole lives pursuing the accqusition of stuff? I'll leave the answer as an exercise for the reader. (don't worry, it's optional.)


Sadly, this nugget of wisdom will pass many people by unnoticed.

... *head-scratch* ...so what are you doing on FARK, anyway? ;-)
 
2004-05-18 04:03:27 PM
I think guns can be more dangerous, but neither should be denied to a responsible adult.

//likes guns and pot... but not at the same time
 
2004-05-18 04:03:36 PM
I would never have gotten thru Physics without weed.
 
Bf+
2004-05-18 04:04:54 PM
5Oclock:

Marijuana was perfectly legal for thousands of years.
When it was made illegal, there was no voting.
 
2004-05-18 04:05:56 PM
COME ON, FOLKS...


There's an obvious argument against smoking weed: we americans are slobbering fat pigs *without* the stuff... can you imagine if *everyone* starts sparking up?
 
2004-05-18 04:08:39 PM
GOD put weed here for us to consume!

ONE CANNOT GO AGAINST THE WILL OF GOD!
 
Bf+
2004-05-18 04:10:19 PM
KazamaSmokers:

I do assume you jest, but someone fairly recently noted that they don't know any fat stoners.

That got me thinking...
The only ones I know are slim, athletic, educated, and work in the technical arena (and are well respected at that).
 
2004-05-18 04:10:39 PM
UncleBuck,

What about shellfish? Got put them here as well and then said "don't eat them shellfish!, and stay away from each other's bums while you're at it!"

I'm sure he meant for us to stay away from dope as well.
 
2004-05-18 04:11:12 PM
"Bahamut

Also, can someone fix the split infinitive in the headline before this goes live?"

An ostentatious post, but a pretentious author. Split infinitives are not always wrong.
 
2004-05-18 04:13:17 PM
sugarlarry: The Enron officials didn't kill anyone, does that mean we should legalize corporate fraud? You're creating a slippery slope by drawing the line of regulation at things that cause death. There are other issues created by pot that fall short of death, and for every sudy out there for any given issue, there is another one against it.

I'm not gonna convince you, you're not gonna convince me, so why don't I get drunk and you get stoned, and we'll be better off.
 
Bf+
2004-05-18 04:14:50 PM
5Oclock:

"There are other issues created by pot that fall short of death..."

Name one.
(No gateway lies either.)
 
2004-05-18 04:15:01 PM
Bf+ even been to a Beck concert? Ben Folds Five?

Every one there is stoned, and there are very few of tem who are well respected techies.
 
2004-05-18 04:15:47 PM
so why don't I get drunk and you get stoned, and we'll be better off.


One thing I can definitely promise you, is I'll be better off stoned than you will be drunk.

You know the facts are there.
 
2004-05-18 04:16:34 PM
i have a good reason to not smoke pot....i can't find anything for sale but swag.

that said, if it is eventually legalized, and i can go into a drug store and buy decent weed, i hereby volunteer to be Henry Earl's marijuana counterpart.
 
2004-05-18 04:17:51 PM
2004-05-18 04:15:01 PM itsfiveoclocksomewhere


Bf+ even been to a Beck concert? Ben Folds Five?

Every one there is stoned, and there are very few of tem who are well respected techies.



What the hell? I've been to see Beck, and it was the most white-bread audience I've ever seen. Sure, they were stoned, but it was still mostly young professionals.

You must hang with the Captain and Tennille crowd.
 
Bf+
2004-05-18 04:18:01 PM
"Bf+ even been to a Beck concert?"
You bet!

"Ben Folds Five?"
Eww. What? No. God no.

"there are very few of who are well respected techies."
Did you ask them?
JK-- I was just relaying my personal experiance, and trying to dispell false generalizations: How many were fat, and sitting on a couch?
 
2004-05-18 04:18:48 PM
2004-05-18 03:50:10 PM itsfiveoclocksomewhere

Uh, the burden of proof is on the AFFIRMATIVE.

That would be YOU. YOU have to justify why the law is in place.

Not the challenger.

It's one of the very first rules of debate, d00d...

Plus you didn't address either of my points, so I assume you're just farking with us...;D
 
2004-05-18 04:18:54 PM
Bf: There are gateway issues. Dismissing them out of hand does not mean that they do not exist. Pot smokers are more likely to do other forms of other drugs. Everyone I know who has done hard drugs started with pot. And I know quite a few pot smokers.

And again, I could pull up studies that show that pot smoking causes cancer, has physical side effects, reduces response times and cognitive functions, as well as any number of other things.

And of course, you can show me studies that show the opposite. Again, we won't convince one another here.
 
2004-05-18 04:19:41 PM
Dope's not that different than booze.
 
2004-05-18 04:20:36 PM
its5 whats it matter if they are all losers, thats no excuse to make it illegal. They aren't making you a loser by osmosis or anything, furthermore you have admitted that not all are losers, why deny us what we enjoy because you don't approve of how others handle it.

i get really pissed about people who don't keep their firearms locked up because they give responsible gun owners like me a bad name... know what i mean?
 
2004-05-18 04:21:12 PM
Itsfive,

Dude, I'd love to get stoned, but I want to do so without fear of being thrown in prison for my own protection. I know I'm probably not going to convince you, but I have to fight the good fight regardless.

You point btw about Enron... makes no sense whatsoever. Steal clearly creates victims and infringes upon the rights of others - hence the reason it is illegal.

Dope as many have pointed out time and time again - has no victims.

People who smoke dope and then go on to use other drugs also most likely use tobbaco and alcohal, so that point it garbage.

People cannot be addicted to dope, though they can form a habit that does little more then make them crabby when they break it.

You cannot overdose on dope. It is impossible.

Dope currently generates huge profits for criminals. Since demand will not go away the best way to deal with this is to remove it from the hands of crimials altogether. This will save not only save countless billions, but generate revenue for the government.

So, where are those studies proving the harm dope causes? Love to see em.
 
2004-05-18 04:22:15 PM
Whidbey: I'm saying leave the law as it is, you're saying change the law, and you think I'm the one who has the affirmative burden of proof?

I agree that I do not know much about the rules of debate, but I do know about other rules that seem to apply. Debate is for geeks.

"There can be nothing more just than a consistent application of the law as it stands." Oliver Wendell Holmes
 
2004-05-18 04:22:21 PM
Everyone I know who has done hard drugs started with pot

Two reasons for this:

1) Since you have to go through illegal sources for pot, you are more likely to encounter "hard" drugs, i.e., cocaine or heroin. If pot was legal and sold at the drugstore, you would be far less likely to encounter these dangerous drugs.

2) Once you realize that your government has been lying to you about marijuana, it becomes harder to take their warnings against heroin seriously. The policy breeds contempt of the policy. Experience always wins over propaganda.

In other words, if marijuana is a gateway drug, it is ONLY because it is illegal. If it was legal, the "gateway" aspect of weed would disappear.
 
2004-05-18 04:22:53 PM
perhaps people who would have used other drugs anyway start with pot because its the easiest to find... rather than pot turning them to other drugs... most of my pot using friends went no farther... me i spent time as a speed addict in the past, but i got hooked to that because of ADD perscriptions before i had ever tried pot
 
2004-05-18 04:22:57 PM
"There are other issues created by pot that fall short of death"

ok, name one.

besides imprisonment of course
 
Displayed 50 of 825 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report