[QUOTE=Contag;31786736]If he had more willpower than anyone will ever see in another human being, why didn't he quit, considering that it was known to be dangerous in the 50s (in American society)?
Unless you're in your 40s, that is.[/QUOTE]
By that point he probably had been doing it for long enough that it wouldn't really matter if he continued. I don't know the guy though.
[QUOTE=bodenlan2;31786771]Plus I have friends that are addicted to smoking weed and cant stop.[/QUOTE]
that's not even possible
[QUOTE=bodenlan2;31786771]yea sure, my mom never smoked cigarrettes and she smoked alot of weed in her hippie days and I'll tell you that lung cancer she got was not pretty. don't you realize that it's the smoke that does the damage not the tobacco or the weed itself. Plus I have friends that are addicted to smoking weed and cant stop. And you may believe it or not but you have my word that's [B]real life experience[/B].[/QUOTE]
Which counts for absolutely nothing, and for good reason.
[QUOTE=bodenlan2;31786771]yea sure, my mom never smoked cigarrettes and she smoked alot of weed in her hippie days and I'll tell you that lung cancer she got was not pretty. don't you realize that it's the smoke that does the damage not the tobacco or the weed itself. Plus I have friends that are addicted to smoking weed and cant stop. And you may believe it or not but you have my word that's real life experience.[/QUOTE]
So what if you don't smoke it? To be honest, I have no reason to take your word for it that "weed's addictive, just trust me man" without something scientific to back it up. Maybe a study that shows THC being addictive or something. Again, you can still get high on weed without smoking it, and avoid that lung cancer problem you're talking about.
[QUOTE=Contag;31786736]If he had more willpower than anyone will ever see in another human being, why didn't he quit, considering that it was known to be dangerous in the 50s (in American society)?
Unless you're in your 40s, that is.[/QUOTE]
Because he was addicted long before that. And no, 1950's America still had very little idea that it was dangerous. It would be decades before the general population caught on.
And after almost literally dying and being sent to the ER while trying to quit on three separate occasions, he elected to stop because they couldn't afford to send him to the doctor anymore and feeding his kids was more important than his own goddamn health.
[QUOTE=GunFox;31786337]Last I checked, being gay wasn't carcinogenic and being around gay people didn't give children asthma.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you're missing the point of what you typed up. None of it was about the health effects, it was all about you not liking smokers. And again, if you were homophobic and had some scientific reason as to why gays shouldn't be around children, the most likely being that they are a bad influence.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;31786429][url]http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/may9/smoking-050907.html[/url][/QUOTE]
That is no evidence of danger, that is evidence that it has an effect on the air. It's similar to making the claim that lead is dangerous, providing a scientific study that shows that there is lead in lipstick, and then providing no risk assessment for those levels of lead for the typical exposure time. Just don't read the press release because for whatever reason the press release never connects with the data. A good example of this is the WHO study that found no increased risk, yet in the press release they claimed otherwise. Yes, there are legit studies that show negative effects of second hand smoke with children and long term couples where one partner smokes in the bedroom nightly.
[QUOTE=GunFox;31786832]And after almost literally dying and being sent to the ER while trying to quit on three separate occasions, he elected to stop because they couldn't afford to send him to the doctor anymore and feeding his kids was more important than his own goddamn health.[/QUOTE]
Sounds very noble of him.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31786790]By that point he probably had been doing it for long enough that it wouldn't really matter if he continued. I don't know the guy though.[/QUOTE]
Actually, if the 'never too late to quit' campaigns are to be believed, thanks to the amazing regenerative capacity of the lungs, one can enjoy significantly greater health than if they had continued smoking.
The divided approach to smoking doesn't help reduce the rate of tobacco use either:
the "every cigarette is doing you damage" combined with "never too late to quit, you'll be almost back to normal in a decade" presents as untrustworthy, and really only detracts from the message of both.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31786822]So what if you don't smoke it? To be honest, I have no reason to take your word for it that "weed's addictive, just trust me man" without something scientific to back it up. Maybe a study that shows THC being addictive or something. Again, you can still get high on weed without smoking it, and avoid that lung cancer problem you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
I don't have any websites with statistics and there are so many different sources saying different things so after a while you believe what you see, if you know what I mean.
My dad is a well educated doctor specialized in drugs and he has patients that are coming to him because they cant stop, it may seem like one hell of a coincidence but the reason why I'm here is because I know things that he tells me and I want to share it and argue with people.
[QUOTE=Pepin;31786840]Perhaps you're missing the point of what you typed up. None of it was about the health effects, it was all about you not liking smokers. And again, if you were homophobic and had some scientific reason as to why gays shouldn't be around children, the most likely being that they are a bad influence.
That is no evidence of danger, that is evidence that it has an effect. It's similar to making the claim that lead is dangerous, providing a scientific study that shows that there is lead in lipstick, and then providing no risk assessment for those levels of lead for the typical exposure time. Just don't read the press release because for whatever reason the press release never connects with the data. A good example of this is the WHO study that found no increased risk, yet in the press release they claimed otherwise.[/QUOTE]
Tell you what. I am going to stand outside of every restaurant you eat at, and I am going to set off stink bombs right outside the door. Hell, if they allow smoking inside, I should set one off inside.
Just for good measure, I'm going to lace them with rat poison.
Oh, am I infringing on your right to breathe? Well, come back with scientific studies saying something to that effect. Until then I am just going to keep setting them off.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31786822]So what if you don't smoke it? To be honest, I have no reason to take your word for it that "weed's addictive, just trust me man" without something scientific to back it up. Maybe a study that shows THC being addictive or something. Again, you can still get high on weed without smoking it, and avoid that lung cancer problem you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
The subject of weed hasn't had any clear studies thus far, any studies on weed good or bad shoul be taken with a pinch of salt.
[QUOTE=GunFox;31786832]And after almost literally dying and being sent to the ER while trying to quit on three separate occasions, he elected to stop because they couldn't afford to send him to the doctor anymore and feeding his kids was more important than his own goddamn health.[/QUOTE]
That's horrible. Stories like that make me wish for an afterlife of some kind, because damn, do some people deserve it.
As an aside (and not relevant to your narrative as it was before it was widely known), I don't believe it's ethically justifiable to smoke at home with children, non-smokers or pets in relatively close proximity.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;31782869]Selling a product more addictive than Heroin isn't fair either.[/QUOTE]
they're not even near, if you go cold turkey on heroin you can die, cigerettes you get a small urge to smoke, not comparable. I still agree that they should have these warnings on them.
[QUOTE=bodenlan2;31786884]I don't have any websites with statistics and there are so many different sources saying different things so after a while you believe what you see, if you know what I mean.
My dad is a well educated doctor specialized in drugs and he has patients that are coming to him because they cant stop, it may seem like one hell of a coincidence but the reason why I'm here is because I know things that he tells me and I want to share it and argue with people.[/QUOTE]
If you want to argue with people anonymously, you have to provide a source to support your side beyond "people I know say they can't stop, must be addictive. believe me, my dad's a doctor". I mean you can't seriously expect anyone to take you seriously like that. You can bake with marijuana or inhale it through a bong to avoid getting lung cancer, and it is physically impossible to become addicted to THC.
Here's a source for that claim: [url]http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/vchemlib/mim/bristol/thc/thc_text.htm[/url]
"THC is non-addictive and there are no withdrawal symptoms. However, one of the side-effects of its use is to make the user drowsy, with reduced concentration and short term memory."
[editline]17th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31786912]The subject of weed hasn't had any clear studies thus far, any studies on weed good or bad shoul be taken with a pinch of salt.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying it's necessarily beneficial or a cure-all, but THC is not addictive. If done frequently, you may get irritable, but there is no physical compulsion to do the drug again.
[QUOTE=GunFox;31786474]Am I serious that smoking is an action performed by uneducated or unintelligent people? Yes.
Likewise I am also serious that people who do cocaine are likely uneducated or unintelligent. As are people who do meth.
EDIT: WAIT FUCK, SHOULD HAVE SAID "As that heart attack you are going to have in two decades" DAMMIT.[/QUOTE]
Wow, I've never seen someone take the economic merit good idea to true heart. Just because people ignore health warnings doesn't mean they're ill educated or dumb. Some people accept the risk & damage things may cause for whatever their prerogative is. I will grant you that any drug substance such as cigerettes or meth etc will have plenty of dumb users but that doesn't mean to tar them all with the same brush.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31786997]If you want to argue with people anonymously, you have to provide a source to support your side beyond "people I know say they can't stop, must be addictive. believe me, my dad's a doctor". I mean you can't seriously expect anyone to take you seriously like that. You can bake with marijuana or inhale it through a bong to avoid getting lung cancer, and it is physically impossible to become addicted to THC.
Here's a source for that claim: [url]http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/vchemlib/mim/bristol/thc/thc_text.htm[/url]
"THC is non-addictive and there are no withdrawal symptoms. However, one of the side-effects of its use is to make the user drowsy, with reduced concentration and short term memory."
[editline]17th August 2011[/editline]
I'm not saying it's necessarily beneficial or a cure-all, but THC is not addictive. If done frequently, you may get irritable, but there is no physical compulsion to do the drug again.[/QUOTE]
I doubt it's the THC that people get addicted to be honest.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31787043]I doubt it's the THC that people get addicted to be honest.[/QUOTE]
what do you think they get addicted to then
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31786997]If you want to argue with people anonymously, you have to provide a source to support your side beyond "people I know say they can't stop, must be addictive. believe me, my dad's a doctor". I mean you can't seriously expect anyone to take you seriously like that. You can bake with marijuana or inhale it through a bong to avoid getting lung cancer, and it is physically impossible to become addicted to THC.
Here's a source for that claim: [url]http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/vchemlib/mim/bristol/thc/thc_text.htm[/url]
"THC is non-addictive and there are no withdrawal symptoms. However, one of the side-effects of its use is to make the user drowsy, with reduced concentration and short term memory."
[editline]17th August 2011[/editline]
I'm not saying it's necessarily beneficial or a cure-all, but THC is not addictive. If done frequently, you may get irritable, but there is no physical compulsion to do the drug again.[/QUOTE]
yea I know what you mean. The reason why I don't want to post sources is because you can find them for pretty much anything, I could make my own statistics and my own website like that and write the complete opposite. Like that one "THC is non-addictive..." line, I don't really believe it more just because it says so on a random website.
[QUOTE=GunFox;31786908]
Just for good measure, I'm going to lace them with rat poison.
[/QUOTE]
You'd probably end up slightly reducing circulatory issues for a little while.
[QUOTE=Sanius;31787071]what do you think they get addicted to then[/QUOTE]
Something else in the weed? Who knows what drug dealers put in their stuff.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31787043]I doubt it's the THC that people get addicted too to be honest.[/QUOTE]
Most people in cases of "addiction" to marijuana simply went back to it again because it made them feel relaxed during times of stress, not because of a physical urge to do the drug again. The difference between this and nicotine is that nicotine is physically addictive, and if you try to stop when you feel less stressed out you will have physical withdrawal. I point to THC because that is the main component in marijuana, and again, you can avoid lung cancer by baking it into food or inhaling through a bong.
[editline]17th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31787113]Something else in the weed? Who knows what drug dealers put in their stuff.[/QUOTE]
Then that's not even weed being addictive, that's an added substance. All the more reason for it to be legalized so that it can be regulated like other plants, so that you can ensure that it's clean.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31787115]Most people in cases of "addiction" to marijuana simply went back to it again because it made them feel relaxed during times of stress, not because of a physical urge to do the drug again. The difference between this and nicotine is that nicotine is physically addictive, and if you try to stop when you feel less stressed out you will have physical withdrawal. I point to THC because that is the main component in marijuana, and again, you can avoid lung cancer by baking it into food or inhaling through a bong.
[editline]17th August 2011[/editline]
Then that's not even weed being addictive, that's an added substance. All the more reason for it to be legalized so that it can be regulated like other plants, so that you can ensure that it's clean.[/QUOTE]
I'm not against weed particularly any way, I'd prefer it was legal personally.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31787113]Something else in the weed? Who knows what drug dealers put in their stuff.[/QUOTE]
uh I don't know, nothing?
you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. drug dealers that lace their weed with addictive shit get bad word of mouth. it's bad for business
[QUOTE=Sanius;31787160]uh I don't know, nothing?
you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. drug dealers that lace their weed with addictive shit get bad word of mouth. it's bad for business[/QUOTE]
just jumping a little off topic here but how can it be bad for business if the buyers keep coming back?
[QUOTE=bodenlan2;31787197]just jumping a little off topic here but how can it be bad for business if the buyers keep coming back?[/QUOTE]
Because they'd get a bad name and no one would buy from them.
[QUOTE=bodenlan2;31787076]yea I know what you mean. The reason why I don't want to post sources is because you can find them for pretty much anything, I could make my own statistics and my own website like that and write the complete opposite. Like that one "THC is non-addictive..." line, I don't really believe it more just because it says so on a random website.[/QUOTE]
It has sources from biology texts. I mean if you can't take any source on the internet seriously, then there's just no hope. I mean the best I can do is look at the disagreeing sources and point out fallacies in them to lend my point more credence.
Like this article here: [url]http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4826[/url]
In the one portion where they get to any specifics about THC addiction, they say it's proven by having people take high-dose THC pills, higher THC content than in common marijuana, and saying that they experienced irritability. If that's addiction, then some people have incredibly weak willpower.
What I'm saying is that you should look at these things with a discerning eye and don't just take your dad's word for it, or your friend's word for it, but look at every facet of the issue.
[editline]17th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31787159]I'm not against weed particularly any way, I'd prefer it was legal personally.[/QUOTE]
And there's no real reason to be against it.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31787211]It has sources from biology texts. I mean if you can't take any source on the internet seriously, then there's just no hope. I mean the best I can do is look at the disagreeing sources and point out fallacies in them to lend my point more credence.
Like this article here: [url]http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4826[/url]
In the one portion where they get to any specifics about THC addiction, they say it's proven by having people take high-dose THC pills, higher THC content than in common marijuana, and saying that they experienced irritability. If that's addiction, then some people have incredibly weak willpower.
What I'm saying is that you should look at these things with a discerning eye and don't just take your dad's word for it, or your friend's word for it, but look at every facet of the issue.[/QUOTE]
You make good points and I do agree with you. but you have to agree with that it is frightening to see people become messed up by it.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31787211]
And there's no real reason to be against it.[/QUOTE]
Well there is the psychosis scare, but I think more research needs to be put into the effects of weed before anyone starts trying to say things are one way or the other.
[QUOTE=bodenlan2;31787260]You make good points and I do agree with you. but you have to agree with that it is frightening to see people become messed up by it.[/QUOTE]
Well let's get more into that. What do you mean they were "messed up" by it?
last and least I'd just like to say where I stand on it.
Most drugs are bad in some way, some more some less. I'm not for legalization because I think it feels stupid to make more drugs legal just to get money from it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.