[QUOTE=alx12345;35725775]Cig are the best dessert ever to me, right after a diner or something, its hard to explain.
I used to smoke a package (25 Cig) every 2-3 days, 2 years later im still smoking, but now a package may last between 1-2 week, i naturally got somewhat sick of it and never really had an "Addiction feeling" even 2 years ago.
But canabis will likely be for a long time, will need a lot of effort and time to stop it.[/QUOTE]
At least weed gets you high with some positive health effects on top of it.
[QUOTE=alx12345;35725775]Cig are the best dessert ever to me, right after a diner or something, its hard to explain.
I used to smoke a package (25 Cig) every 2-3 days, 2 years later im still smoking, but now a package may last between 1-2 week, i naturally got somewhat sick of it and never really had an "Addiction feeling" even 2 years ago.[/QUOTE]
Cigarettes just induce nausea and dizziness. I don't see any merit to that.
[QUOTE=Klammyxxl;35731186]At least weed gets you high with some positive health effects on top of it.[/QUOTE]
It's also unfiltered and does a shitload more damage to your lungs than typical tobacco if you smoke it.
One of the primary negative effects of cigarettes is that they literally burn the pores in your airway and lungs that produce mucus. That's what produces "smoker's cough," because your lungs can't produce enough mucus to get trash out of them. Pot does the same thing, only you end up with MORE trash in your lungs because it's not as well-filtered as cigarettes are, even out of a bong. While THC is not directly carcinogenic, pot can damage your lungs p. bad.
So please don't pretend pot is a fucking miracle drug, because it isn't. It's relatively safe and it isn't carcinogenic, yes. But aside from the cancerous effects, smoking pot does the same shit to your lungs that smoking tobacco/cloves/whatever does, sans filtration. It's not a Jesus Joint, guys. It's a relatively safe drug, with the operative word being RELATIVE. If you truly give a shit about your health, unless you're going through chemotherapy treatments or something, don't smoke [I]anything[/I].
vaporisation ftw :)
And yes, I am aware that that is not 100% safe either - nothing is really.
Relevant quote I think:
[quote=Peter McWilliams - Ain't Nobodys Business If You Do]
Yes, there are some things with which it is easier to be in a bad relationship than
others. Cigarettes practically beg for a bad relationship. But then, they were designed
that way. For the several centuries prior to the Civil War, tobacco's use was primarily
recreational: people would inhale it, choke, get dizzy, fall on the floor, roll around—
typical Saturday night recreation. For the most part, people used tobacco (a botanical
relative of deadly nightshade, by the way) once or twice a week and that was it.
After the Civil War, the South needed a cash crop less labor intensive than cotton. A
special strain of tobacco was developed that allowed people to inhale deeply without
coughing. This let people smoke almost continuously, if they liked. It also resulted in
almost immediate addiction.
Almost everyone who smokes is addicted to tobacco. While there are many "social
drinkers," there is almost no such thing as the "social smoker." Smokers begin smoking
from the time they wake up in the morning and continue smoking regularly throughout
the day until they go to sleep.
Addiction is a sure sign of a bad relationship. At first, the addictive substance (or
activity) makes us "high." After a while, however, the body builds up an immunity to the
substance (or activity), and more and more is needed to achieve the same euphoric
effect. Unfortunately, the toxic effects of the substance (or activity) eventually
counteract the elation. At that point, we take the substance (or partake in the activity)
more to get by than to get high.
[/quote]
I'm not saying I'm okay with pot being banned. I'm saying you shouldn't talk about it like it's healthy when you say it should be legal, because that's so patently wrong that it undermines your own argument. You gotta focus on personal choice, not on supposed health benefits.
It's about as bad as the "GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE" bullshit the NRA spews. I'm all for the Second Amendment, but you can't fucking pretend they aren't tools of death.
Yeah I hate the people that say it's safe because "it's natural", they really ruin their whole cause by doing that. There are plenty of natural things that will kill you pretty quickly :)
Arsenic is natural, and I sure as shit don't smoke that.
The "natural" hippies are morons who don't realize what a bitch nature is.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;35713663]You're missing my point. You compared smoking to driving and said if smoking were to ever be banned so should driving. I don't see anyone driving cigarettes to work, dude, and if you want to argue that you could also argue that cigarettes aren't a necessity and that shaving off that extra layer of pollution is okay. I wouldn't agree with it and I don't care [i]too[/i] much second-hand smoke as long as others are playing fair, really, but a car is more valuable than a cigarette and serves a much better purpose.[/QUOTE]
both are luxuries
Doesn't matter what you call them. Your cigarettes aren't getting you across town to your job to get you your cigarettes in the first place. It's called priorities and probably not living down the street from everything.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;35738166]Doesn't matter what you call them. Your cigarettes aren't getting you across town to your job to get you your cigarettes in the first place. It's called priorities and probably not living down the street from everything.[/QUOTE]
because youre qualified to dictate everyone elses priorities
[editline]27th April 2012[/editline]
wow you should, like, be president or something
No but I generally know people that drive and drive to make a living for themselves everyday. You can say cigarettes are on the same level as cars but when it comes right down to it you can have a fun tome trying to ban cars because of their exhaust fumes. Why? They get you to work. They get you to school. They are pretty important. Cigarettes are not on the same level and no matter what you can't weed around that.
so by that merit shouldn't we ban internet forums
-snip, my phone went full retard, let me hop onto my computer which i need to do anyway-
are you illiterate
i can't understand what the fuck you're saying
[QUOTE=Lankist;35738277]so by that merit shouldn't we ban internet forums[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I don't get this. Maybe you can explain what I said that would warrant that argument maybe I could argue against that, but that just sounded like you pulled that out of nowhere. It sounds like you're using one of the top 10 of the worst logical fallacies ever, though, which is setting up whoever you're arguing with to the absolute extreme. That's like saying whoever approves of gay marriage approves of eternal suffering.
Unless, maybe you're referring to the idea that I'm for banning cigarettes which is false since I already stated a hundred times that I'm not. I'm all for the end of cigarette usage but only voluntarily by a group of people, not with a stupid tax.
What I'm confused about is how can you put a source of transportation that gets you to and from work to even get you the money to buy a pack of cigarettes on the same level as a pack of cigarettes? And before you answer with, "civil rights gov shoul stay out of my busineslol" I'm not asking for your opinion on rights. I'm literally asking [b]you[/b] how can [b]you[/b] put a pack of cigarettes next to a truck and say they're valued just the same in your eyes? In fact, that was the entire argument all along - I'm not saying, "Ban cigarettes!" but if someone were given the choice between eliminating one or the other I could not imagine someone having trouble with the decision.
Obviously, to a smoker cigarettes are a priority but maybe I'm biased in thinking that cigarettes are more of a luxury and cars are more of a necessity. Then again I only live across the city from my school.
internet forums aren't a necessity
you're saying the fact that something is not a necessity is reason enough to ban it
why not ban internet forums
they waste time, start arguments, and they don't do your health any favors
[QUOTE=Lankist;35738775]you're saying the fact that something is not a necessity is reason enough to ban it[/QUOTE]
where
In all the fucking times you've said the only reason cars aren't banned is because they are a necessity and not a luxury.
[editline]27th April 2012[/editline]
There's something called an inverse.
Don't play semantics.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35738872]In all the fucking times you've said the only reason cars aren't banned is because they are a necessity and not a luxury.
[editline]27th April 2012[/editline]
There's something called an inverse.
Don't play semantics.[/QUOTE]
I told him that if cigarettes ever get banned (which I don't support) he's still going to have a hard time getting trucks to get banned. I understand the inverse, but in reality I don't even support a ban.
because its not like we've banned necessary shit before
like hemp
[QUOTE=Lankist;35738922]because its not like we've banned necessary shit before
like hemp[/QUOTE]
That ban is absolutely retarded and as I've stated before prohibition doesn't do anything. I'm all for legalizing it. Again, however, if they were to ban cars they'd get a wave of anger from just about everyone but maybe environmentalists and employment would go nuts.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35732389][B]It's also unfiltered and does a shitload more damage to your lungs than typical tobacco if you smoke it.[/B]
One of the primary negative effects of cigarettes is that they literally burn the pores in your airway and lungs that produce mucus. That's what produces "smoker's cough," because your lungs can't produce enough mucus to get trash out of them. Pot does the same thing, only you end up with MORE trash in your lungs because it's not as well-filtered as cigarettes are, even out of a bong. While THC is not directly carcinogenic, pot can damage your lungs p. bad.
So please don't pretend pot is a fucking miracle drug, because it isn't. It's relatively safe and it isn't carcinogenic, yes. But aside from the cancerous effects, smoking pot does the same shit to your lungs that smoking tobacco/cloves/whatever does, sans filtration. It's not a Jesus Joint, guys. It's a relatively safe drug, with the operative word being RELATIVE. If you truly give a shit about your health, unless you're going through chemotherapy treatments or something, don't smoke [I]anything[/I].[/QUOTE]
How many times do I have to prove people are wrong about the harmful effects of smoking marijuana
[url]http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/marijuana-smoking-does-not-harm-lungs-study-finds/[/url]
oh hey you clearly read what i said
I just reread it and I realised I bolded the wrong part, but you are wrong with saying that pot can damage your lungs pretty bad
THC doesn't damage your lungs.
Smoking anything at all does.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;35696562]Fuck just cigarettes, let's make all drugs legal. Except pot, it's called dope for a reason.[/QUOTE]
satire or is on meth
cannot tell which
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35690914]Because the government doesn't belong in my body. I'm a big boy, I can make my own decisions.[/QUOTE]
What about the people who your decision affects?
For instance, I've chosen not to smoke, but my parents decided to smoke for me until I was about 18. And thankfully the government where I live has within the last 6 years or so, implemented a law where smokers are no longer permitted to smoke indoors in public places (like pubs), nor within a certain distance of the entrances to said places. They're also not allowed to smoke in a vehicle with children (ie., like my parents did when I was younger). Babies and very young children cannot make that decision.
Is it really solely your choice? I mean, maybe in the US where you pay for your own health care, but other parts of the world have social medicine and it is outrageous to me to have to pay for someone to get medical care because they made a [b][i][u]painfully obvious[/u][/i][/b] bad choice all their life and reaped the consequences versus someone who is genuinely ill, especially if that person is the victim of second hand smoke.
Most people have a certain attitude towards the harder drugs out there, so until we take the attitude that it's all about freedom and personal decision making across the board, I think it's time we started treating smoking the same way.
[editline]28th April 2012[/editline]
I just realized this post is quite a bit late but I don't spend my life on here so deal with it.
so your argument is that if we can't do something right we should do everything wrong
Who is "we" exactly?
We as in society.
We as in those "most people [who] have a certain attitude towards the harder drugs out there"
[editline]28th April 2012[/editline]
You say that because other drugs are banned, regardless of whether that's right, we should go ahead and ban everything else just to even it out.
That's like saying we should ban pornography because, shit, prostitution is already illegal.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.