• Obama: "Marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol"
    236 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Loriborn;43612822]Anecdotal. Doesn't really matter. Sourcing personal experience doesn't provide anything tangible. I could say I knew pothead lawyer families that lost every case and now live on the street; it doesn't reflect the actions of the majority and you can't treat it as standard for every lawyer. Even then, yes, research isn't a stressful part of the job, and as long as they know what they're doing and look over everything thoroughly, they're not going to majorly fuck anything up. Marijuana is different than alcohol though, and you don't know how all lawyers would react to such stuff; it also matters what kind of cases they take on, be they small time civil cases, or murder cases. Makes a difference. Same with whether or not they work for a firm. Like I said, if they can do it, fine; if they run their own firm, and they win cases, more power to them, but in the cases of "one fuck up and you ruin someone's life," (like in the case of driving or being a doctor or nurse) there is no room for an unclear mind. Though I guarantee you if a client finds out his or her lawyer is a pothead, he won't be very happy. I mean, would you trust your lawyer or doctor if he was an alcoholic?[/QUOTE] No it doesn't matter what they do in their personal life because I, and no one else, are paying for their private lives. We're paying for their skill at a job. So if they're good at a job, what right do I have to give a shit about the fact they're high at home? None. Absolutely none. Most lawyers are functional alcoholics. My father was a complete alcoholic when he was the provincial prosecutor, his familial life suffered for it but his career did not. This, he's told me, is quite normal for high stress professions where they have high stress jobs. I certainly don't feel it's anyone's business what they do at home if their performing their job fine. I think you're saying that pot smokers and alcohol drinkers are useless in their jobs from how you phrased this.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43612906]No it doesn't matter what they do in their personal life because I, and no one else, are paying for their private lives. We're paying for their skill at a job. So if they're good at a job, what right do I have to give a shit about the fact they're high at home? None. Absolutely none.[/QUOTE] This is a mixed statement. It does matter what they do in their personal life. If some idiot goes and drives drunk on the road, in his personal free time, and hit me or my mother or my girlfriend and kills us, their personal life just became my problem. When someone's poor decisions fuck me over, they're personal life has become a problem, and their decisions ruined someone else's life. I don't give a flying fuck what anyone does in the safety of their home, but once they step out of the house, they're lives are no longer private, and what they do affects everyone they come into contact with. They're in public. If you are drunk or high in public, and you do something shitty because you're not in your right mind, or because you're impaired, you are responsible. That is why you don't drink and drive, and why you don't drive under the influence. It's selfish and naive and self centered. If you work from home, drink to your hearts' content, fine by me; if you win cases and you get plastered and cry yourself to sleep every night because of the stress great, be my guest. I don't care what anyone does at home to cope with stress, but leave it at home and out of where it affects me. That's what "recreational use" means. [quote]Most lawyers are functional alcoholics. My father was a complete alcoholic when he was the provincial prosecutor, his familial life suffered for it but his career did not. This, he's told me, is quite normal for high stress professions where they have high stress jobs.[/quote] Incredibly anecdotal and a massive assumption. I'm sorry for your alcoholic family life, and I'm more sorry that it has imbued you with this sense that alcoholism is okay, but just because your father, or people your father knew, or your family, were alcoholics, doesn't mean everyone who works high stress jobs is. Nor does it mean they go to work drunk. Like I said, for the research portion of a lawyer's job, he can do whatever he wants, and if he manages to be a drunkard and win cases, more power to him. My argument is not against that. My argument is against public intoxication and being high in public, while engaging in the high stress portion of any job. If we're going anecdotal, I work with doctors who know stress like you wouldn't believe. Some drink, some don't touch the stuff, but none of them are alcoholics. (that I know of) Maybe your father or family didn't handle stress well, and that's fine, and I agree, if they perform well enough at work, more power to them. But this isn't always the case and you cannot say that all lawyers or doctors or chefs or accountants can drink at work and perform well, as that's just not the case, and I know everyone here, if put into a situation, wants their doctor or lawyer or chef in the clearest of minds when working for them. If I'm paying someone hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend me in court, I don't want to lose because he came into the courtroom drunk or high or tripping balls. It's just selfish. Keep it at home and drink when you get there. [quote]I certainly don't feel it's anyone's business what they do at home if their performing their job fine. I think you're saying that pot smokers and alcohol drinkers are useless in their jobs from how you phrased this.[/quote] Not necessarily; if you work at home, fine, you're obviously not directly endangering anyone from there. I was speaking more of people whose general workday involves engaging with people in a direct manner. Doctors, chefs, delivery drivers, people who would suffer from cognitive impairment. while at work, that alcohol and marijuana induces. Even so, you're just speaking anecdotal stories about your personal. The facts are what they are.
So many stupid stoners in here making us superior stoners looks bad. Everything in moderation, end of story. I used to smoke weed on a daily basis, since I was 16 in-fact(21 now), and on and off beforehand. The nature of intoxication is undeniable, and claiming you are able to perform better when stoned isn't something you can back-up with experience until you experience sobriety for a long enough time, but your too busy smoking to figure it out. I will say one thing quitting was piss easy and I don't personally consider psychological addiction to weed a dire topic, I was addicted to the nicotine far more than weed.
[QUOTE=whatthe;43613368]I will say one thing quitting was piss easy and I don't personally consider psychological addiction to weed a dire topic, I was addicted to the nicotine far more than weed.[/QUOTE] I'm sure you weren't addicted to it then. Psychological addiction (to whatever it may be) requires a certain kind of personality. Not everyone gets addicted, some do easily, some do after a long period of time. I'm sure you weren't dependent on it to a great extent and you were able to quit easily when real life provided you better alternatives with which to spend your time.
For me I usually pick up some mj or hash and then smoke for almost every day for like about 2 weeks and then when I'm out I have a break for 2 weeks.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;43612403]yeah i love it when my doctors and lawyers are stoned outta their mind [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] marijuana is only a small fraction of cartel operations most of their efforts are related to opiates, drugs like cocaine, and human trafficking legalizing marijuana would have hardly any effect on their power [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] ah yes george clinton the great funk musician[/QUOTE] the underground marijuana industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. but that's assuming we don't legalize and regulate all other drugs (something that should be done).
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43613767]the underground marijuana industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. but that's assuming we don't legalize and regulate all other drugs (something that should be done).[/QUOTE] I don't deny marijuana is massive. Legalizing it would not put a massive enough dent in cartels (or any illegal suppliers/traffickers) as to stop them though. It would be undeniably great for business though. It's a massive market that, if legal federally, a number of companies would spring up to fulfill the market. More jobs, more money, more exchange that doesn't go out of country and untaxed.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;43613817]I don't deny marijuana is massive. Legalizing it would not put a massive enough dent in cartels (or any illegal suppliers/traffickers) as to stop them though. It would be undeniably great for business though. It's a massive market that, if legal federally, a number of companies would spring up to fulfill the market. More jobs, more money, more exchange that doesn't go out of country and untaxed.[/QUOTE] 30% is pretty huge though (which is what that thing i posted estimated) and with the legalization of all drugs (which i admit is quite a pipe dream) that would be a huge amount of their power cut but again yeah alot of their power in mexico is more due to their strongarm tactics
Yo people should smoke on their own time and keep it out of other people's business. Don't go to work high and don't drive high. I swear you chumps can make a 10 page argument out of thin air.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;43607368]I never said that people weren't capable of making critical decisions, but that in high-stress situations where fast paced thinking is necessary, the slowness of thought impairs people in how quickly they can react to said situation. If a little girl runs in front of the vehicle, most sober people barely think quickly enough to prevent the collision; the impairment of thinking due to cannabis use will obviously slow down the user even further. My point isn't that high people cause wrecks and are incapable of driving, rather, that the risk of collision due to slowness of thought it very real, and a very dangerous thing. The worst part, however, is that so many people seem to think that these negative effects are actually [B]beneficial,[/B] and that driving while under the influence makes them better drivers. This just isn't true; in a case where someone has some form of attention disorder, I can maybe understand the concept that marijuana use would help ease the nerves and aide in driving, but that is personal theory that I cannot back with evidence, so obviously I wouldn't suggest it or condone it. I have no problem with people recreationally using cannabis, just don't get behind the wheel while high, and you won't put people (and yourself) at higher risk of harm. It's not safe, and it's silly to argue with the driving statistics, even if you or people you know haven't had trouble yet. That's the point of statistics, they show that the risk increases, not that every person is going to get into a wreck when they smoke; it does show that the risk is both unnecessary and increased, and if you are high and need to go somewhere, take public transportation, let a sober friend drive you, or wait until you're sober. [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] If you're working menial labor, I could understand where you might think working while high is no big deal, but real jobs that require rapid mental thought aren't workplaces wherein you can afford to be slow and relaxed. If you're a writer, go ahead and get stoned and write a great piece of surrealist fiction, fine by me. If you're a nurse, or an accountant, or a cook, I think every sensible person would agree we want the people taking care of us, doing our taxes, and cooking our food, to be in a mental state where they can react to problems and high stress situations. Would you want your grandmother's caretaker to be blazed as hell? Nursing homes are incredibly high stress environments, though you wouldn't believe it. Never heard of anyone who works a proper career claim they can work high or drunk; that's something reserved for people who work fast food or something. (hell, I've worked fast food, you can't be slow and relaxed there either)[/QUOTE] Unloading and preparing boats and ships isn't menial labour
Goddamn some of you people in this thread are pretty dumb.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;43614404]Unloading and preparing boats and ships isn't menial labour[/QUOTE] You're only arguing for the sake of argument, and frankly making stoners appear to lack better judgement. We don't need full cognitive ability and the motor skills akin to superhuman feats to prove weeds place in the world. How could you possibly be denying the nature of intoxication, unless you don't agree that smoking weed intoxicates you?
[QUOTE=Valiantttt;43594737]The only reason why alcohol is tolerated is because of the long history we have with it(socially accepted) and that there are huge companies behind it. Same thing with ciggaretes, it is very nasty stuff. Personally, it tastes disgusting(alcohol in general).[/QUOTE] When it's cigarettes it depends on the country. In some countries where healthcare is practically free, cigarettes cause a huge loss in the total gain. For example the country I currently live in. Sweden. While they tax their cigarettes extremely, they still don't actually make profit from them, only loss because of the health issues caused and being paid for by the very same government that caused the issue in the first place. I'm not against legalization of drugs. I'm simply stating that not all countries gain money from allowing the people to purchase the drugs.
[QUOTE=CaptainHijacks;43616375]When it's cigarettes it depends on the country. In some countries where healthcare is practically free, cigarettes cause a huge loss in the total gain. For example the country I currently live in. Sweden. While they tax their cigarettes extremely, they still don't actually make profit from them, only loss because of the health issues caused and being paid for by the very same government that caused the issue in the first place. I'm not against legalization of drugs. I'm simply stating that not all countries gain money from allowing the people to purchase the drugs.[/QUOTE] You can't compare the damage done by cigarettes so much. One of the many pro's of legalization is not having to get shit weed from your local backstreet dealer that requires tobacco to properly ignite, you get shit weed it takes a lot more heat instead of a dank beaut that goes up in flames. Not to mention that you don't go and smoke 15-20 joints in a day like you would cigarettes, and even that is low by some ciggy smoking standards.
[QUOTE=whatthe;43616270]You're only arguing for the sake of argument, and frankly making stoners appear to lack better judgement. We don't need full cognitive ability and the motor skills akin to superhuman feats to prove weeds place in the world. How could you possibly be denying the nature of intoxication, unless you don't agree that smoking weed intoxicates you?[/QUOTE] what's lacking better judgement though? saying somethings bad just because, or saying something is fine because of experience?
Isn't smoking too much weed bad for one's short-term memory?
[QUOTE=Sunday_Roast;43616537]Isn't smoking too much weed bad for one's short-term memory?[/QUOTE] I haven't suffered this.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43616482]what's lacking better judgement though? saying somethings bad just because, or saying something is fine because of experience?[/QUOTE] That is a loaded question, you cannot deny experience to a degree, but the lack of better judgement is claiming that anybody can drive/work under the influence because of personal experience. For example Sunday_Roast I felt my short-term memory was affected in the long run but I know people in RL who aren't affected to any noticeable degree. One person in particular works in a very timid and safe office, but his job requires such an attention to detail he tells me he couldn't really do it without relaxing in the morning and smoking a small amount, mainly because of pre-existing diagnosed conditions. But he would also claim working while under the influence is fine, but personal experience only stretches so far. All I'm saying is so far most of the stoners that have shown their face in this thread have displayed incompetence albeit with experience on their side, while people who are probably mostly sober, or at least not constantly smoking weed display far more critical thinking. And if I am completely honest, my dad suffers from short-term memory loss to a degree (fanatic note taker) and I ruined my chance to tell if cannabis made the difference because I smoked from an early age. So once again personal experience not really telling the whole stroy as soon as critical thinking takes place.
[QUOTE=Sunday_Roast;43616537]Isn't smoking too much weed bad for one's short-term memory?[/QUOTE] If anything it improved mine, but I had a genuine talent for forgetting shit pretty much on the spot a couple of years ago.
[QUOTE=whatthe;43616591]That is a loaded question, you cannot deny experience to a degree, but the lack of better judgement is claiming that anybody can drive/work under the influence because of personal experience. For example Sunday_Roast I felt my short-term memory was affected in the long run but I know people in RL who aren't affected to any noticeable degree. One person in particular works in a very timid and safe office, but his job requires such an attention to detail he tells me he couldn't really do it without relaxing in the morning and smoking a small amount, mainly because of pre-existing diagnosed conditions. But he would also claim working while under the influence is fine, but personal experience only stretches so far. All I'm saying is so far most of the stoners that have shown their face in this thread have displayed incompetence albeit with experience on their side, while people who are probably mostly sober, or at least not constantly smoking weed display far more critical thinking.[/QUOTE] although i don't really think anyones showed like, the typical 'stoner mindset' that you're kinda talking about, i can see where you're coming from, and i guess when i think about it i feel that when it comes to law you ought to error on the side of caution. but at the same time i dunno if i necessarily agree with that either, and i would prefer if law took a far more case by case approach but i guess that's a question of efficiency in the law system or whatever [editline]21st January 2014[/editline] re: short term memory loss, i think that sometimes when you're stoned definitely you can get that pretty bad, but while sober i can't really say because i've always had quite a bad short term memory
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43616615]re: short term memory loss, i think that sometimes when you're stoned definitely you can get that pretty bad, but while sober i can't really say because i've always had quite a bad short term memory[/QUOTE] Most negative side-effects are actually negated by regular use, that obviously doesn't include cancers etc, but my motor skills almost were not affected at the peak of my use. [QUOTE]although i don't really think anyones showed like, the typical 'stoner mindset' that you're kinda talking about, i can see where you're coming from, and i guess when i think about it i feel that when it comes to law you ought to error on the side of caution. but at the same time i dunno if i necessarily agree with that either, and i would prefer if law took a far more case by case approach but i guess that's a question of efficiency in the law system or whatever[/QUOTE] I agree, to be honest but I have been jaded a bit by people in real life claiming to be on my side of the debate and then cite corporations influencing mass media and peer reviewed journals as the main substance for all arguments, and I'm kind of fed up. I certainly do not disagree with complete and utter legalization, only for it to be taxed and regulated would be nice if we could completely trust the governments of the world.
pot + 2l of some soda = something priceless a friend of mine soaked his pants after he passed out/fell asleep and that was funny also tells a lot about the dangers too :v:
[QUOTE=whatthe;43616654]Most negative side-effects are actually negated by regular use, that obviously doesn't include cancers etc, but my motor skills almost were not affected at the peak of my use. I agree, to be honest but I have been jaded a bit by people in real life claiming to be on my side of the debate and then cite corporations influencing mass media and peer reviewed journals as the main substance for all arguments, and I'm kind of fed up. I certainly do not disagree with complete and utter legalization, only for it to be taxed and regulated would be nice if we could completely trust the governments of the world.[/QUOTE] well, i dunno man, corporations have had a certain affect on it, you definitely can't deny the effect on lobbying groups when it comes to legalization. although i don't get why you'd be against peer reviewed journals being cited? [editline]22nd January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=LittleBabyman;43616670]pot + 2l of some soda = something priceless a friend of mine soaked his pants after he passed out/fell asleep and that was funny also tells a lot about the dangers too :v:[/QUOTE] that would never happen to me man, when i get stoned off anything i get the feeling i've pissed myself and it makes me compulsively urinate haha
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43616675]well, i dunno man, corporations have had a certain affect on it, you definitely can't deny the effect on lobbying groups when it comes to legalization. although i don't get why you'd be against peer reviewed journals being cited?[/QUOTE] I am certainly not denying the affect corporations and lobbying have, I avidly and actively experience disgust at how the system is abused, but I digress. What I meant is most stoners I talk to do not accept these peer reviewed journals or critical thinking processes because of their automatic defence against anything officially documented or actually structured, because their "personal experience" is better, and I put that in quotes for reason. Obviously their experience is entirely subjective and the effects on motor skill, perception etc are on a person to person basis. They will outright deny this literature instead of having a balanced look weighing experience with research, its too black and white.
[QUOTE=whatthe;43616804]I am certainly not denying the affect corporations and lobbying have, I avidly and actively experience disgust at how the system is abused, but I digress. What I meant is most stoners I talk to do not accept these peer reviewed journals or critical thinking processes because of their automatic defence against anything officially documented or actually structured, because their "personal experience" is better, and I put that in quotes for reason. Obviously their experience is entirely subjective and the effects on motor skill, perception etc are on a person to person basis. They will outright deny this literature instead of having a balanced look weighing experience with research, its too black and white.[/QUOTE] oh okay i thought it was you who were disagreeing with peer reviewed journals or whatever. yeah like, honestly i agree that overall the effect pot can have on people makes me think it shouldn't be used in quite a few situations, but at the same time, i love using it in those situations and i do it fine which yeah i agree is a personal experience, but at the same time as i seed i feel like maybe it SHOULD be a case by case thing. why should i be punished for NOT fucking up under the influence like someone who DOES fuck up under the influence? but yeah again at the same time that seems like a really retarded argument for drunk driving which i'm definitely against
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43616825]oh okay i thought it was you who were disagreeing with peer reviewed journals or whatever. yeah like, honestly i agree that overall the effect pot can have on people makes me think it shouldn't be used in quite a few situations, but at the same time, i love using it in those situations and i do it fine which yeah i agree is a personal experience, but at the same time as i seed i feel like maybe it SHOULD be a case by case thing. why should i be punished for NOT fucking up under the influence like someone who DOES fuck up under the influence? but yeah again at the same time that seems like a really retarded argument for drunk driving which i'm definitely against[/QUOTE] All of this is based off an unrealistic world where we review every single DUI on a case-by-case basis, and you know that is unrealistic. Anyway it's basic math, yes you haven't fucked up so far, but it is only a matter of time. It is also the same argument used by certain speeders, I can control this vehicle at [B]x[/B] m/kph so why should I slow down, well because you have to take other drivers into account. Somebody else making a stupid mistake, "whoops I don't have the reaction time of a sober person because I am intoxicated, therefore distorted, and that is based off the objective researched facts" and then they are dead lol. I have many stoner friends (in fact I hardly know anyone who wouldn't smoke it at least once or twice a month) and I choose to get in cars with them whilst they are all stoned all the time, I am risking my life but I am their second pair of eyes, and I actively save peoples lives (i believe anyway) without a second thought, I do not harbour and grudges against pot smokers as I am one but perfectly reasonable people can be led to believe many silly things when intoxicated. I learnt this the hard way because I used to get argumentative and defensive about pot.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.