TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Something to consider... all you X users -
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by jdjd you and your friends must be smoking shit weed then

Huh?
Imported polm (hash) from france and holland more like. Thats FAR stronger than any weed. How come ive never seen these things ur talking about happening? Could it be that they dont happen???

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq Huh? Imported polm (hash) from france and holland more like. Thats FAR stronger than any weed. How come ive never seen these things ur talking about happening? Could it be that they dont happen???

I dunno, maybe you are smoking crack afterwards?? The stuff I explained is common knowledge, even kids know that weed does that to you...

quote:

Originally posted by jdjd I dunno, maybe you are smoking crack afterwards?? The stuff I explained is common knowledge, even kids know that weed does that to you...

The average person hasnt got a clue about the real effects of drugs, regardless of their stance on the subject.
Its only common knowledge because of government propaganda. I can tell u now that what u said is NOT TRUE. Just because its common knowledge doesnt mean its true.
Heres some famous cannabis users.

Aaron Sorkin, creator of ''The West Wing".
Abbie Hoffman, Activist.
Al and Tipper Gore Politicians
Aleister Crowley, Author and Famous Satanist.
Alexander Dumas, Author - "The Three Musketeers"
Ali Campbell, Singer with UB40
Alice B. Toklas. Famous Cook - Wrote recipe for Hash Fudge Filmed as. 'I Love You Alice B. Toklas'
Allen Ginsberg, Poet.
Andrea Corr, musician, "The Corrs".
Anjelica Huston, Actress.
Arnold Schwarzenegger. Actor. ``I did smoke a joint and I did inhale.''
Arthur Rimbaud.
Balzac.
Beatles.
Benjamin Franklin, Many claims but little proof.
Bill "...but I didn't inhale." Clinton, Politician.
Bill Gates. Not confirmed, just very strongly hinted at in his Playboy interview.
Bill Murray Arrested for possession.
Bing Crosby. Famous crooner of "I'm dreaming of a White Christmas". Now the Film "High Society" makes sense!
Bix Beiderbecke Jazz musician.
Black Crowes, musicians
Bob Denver, Star of "Gilligan's Island".
Bob Dylan, musician.
Bob Marley, musician
Burt Reynolds, actor. He left his first wife because of her drug use. But he has been seen in Cannabis Cafes.
Bruce Lee.
Cab Calloway, Jazz musician. Claimed he only used it once.
Carl Sagan, Scientist - SiFi writer - film "Contact" More info here.
Carlos Santana musician.
Carrie Fischer, Actress
Charlie Sheen, actor.
Charles Beaudelaire, Author.
Cheech Marin, Actor, Don Johnson's sidekick in the TV detective series "Nash Bridges."
Chris Conrad, Author and expert on Cannabis Hemp
Chris Farley. Comedian.
Chrissie Hynde, musician.
Chris Rock, Actor, Comedian, Producer, Screenwriter.
Chubby Checker, Musician. Sang; "Lets Twist Again".
Cilla Black, Musician and presenter. Tried it in the '60's but didn't like it.
Claire Rayner, Agony Aunt.
Conan O'Brian TV Host
Count Basie, Jazz Ban Leader. He was on an DEA file of marajuana users.
Dame Margot Fonteyn, Prima ballerina. Also see entries for Rudolf Nureyev.
David Bailey, Photographer .
Dan Quayle . Politician.
David Hockney, Artist.
Diego Rivera Mexican Artist
Dion Fortune Welsh occultist.
Dionne Warwick, Famous singer of "Walk on by".
Dioscorides Pedanius, 1 st cent. AD. Greek physician. Wrote 'De Materia Medica', used for 1,500 years.
Dizzy Gillespie, Jazz musician He was on an DEA file of marajuana users.
Dr Francis Crick. Nobel Prize winner.
Dr Lester Grinspoon.
Dr R.D.Laing
Dr W.B. O'Shaugnessy Re-introduced cannabis to European medicine.
Drew Barrymore, actress.
Duke Ellington, Jazz Band Leader. He was on an DEA file of marajuana users.
Elliott Gould. Actor.
Eminem, musician.
Emperor Liu Chi-nu, made medical recomendation for its use.
Emperor Shen-Nung, made first known medical recommendation for its use.
Errol Flynn, Actor
Evelyn Waugh. Author.
Francis Ford Coppella, Film Director. Mentioned in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" by Peter Biskind
Fats Waller, musician.
Fitz Hugh Ludlow - wrote 'The Hasheesh Eater'.
Francois Rabelais. 16 th French author. Recommended it as a food not a high.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Used it as a medicine.
Gary Johnson. Governor of New Mexico - Reformer.
Gene Krupa, Jazz musician.
George Gurdjieff , Russian Mystic.
George W Bush Politician and professional hypocrite.
George Melly, Jazz musician.
George Soros, Financier and reformer.
George Washington , grew it and there is evidence that he prepared it for smoking.
And incidentally many other US presidents use to smoke Hemp.
Thomas Jefferson.
James Madison.
James Monroe.
Andrew Jackson,
Zachary Taylor.
Franklin Pierce.
Also see entries for Bill Clinton and George Bush.
Gerard de Nerval French writer
Graham Greene, Author.
Grateful Dead musicians.
Harrison Ford, Actor. This is a claim made by Bill Maher that has not been denied.
Hasan I-Sabah (Hasan-bin-Sabah) Leader of the Assassins.
Heinrich Khunrath, Medieval Alchemist. and Philosopher.
Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Russian Theosophist.
Henri Michaux poet and painter
Howard Marks. Ex-smuggler and Raconteur.
H R H Prince Harry, Third in line to the British throne.
H R H Princess Margaret, sister to Her Majesty the Queen. Her son disputes the claim.
Howard Stern, admitted it on the radio.
Hua T'o Medical use as anaesthetic .
Hunter S. Thompson, Author
Isabel Allende, Chilean author. Mentioned in her book "Paula".
Jack Kerouac, Author
Jack Nicholson, actor.
Jackie Gleason, actor. Another whom the DEA kept on their pot files.
James Brown, musician
Janis Joplin, musician. Tried it but "... she didn't like marijuana, it gave her the jitters."
Jane Fonda, Actress.
Jennifer Aniston, actress. "I enjoy smoking cannabis and see no harm in it", Daily Mail, 11/9/01.
Jennifer Capriati, Tennis champ.
Jesse Ventura, Governor of Minnesota.
Jesus Christ. 'healed using cannabis'.
Jim Morrison, musician.
Jimmy Dorsey, Jazz musician, He was on an DEA file of marijuana users.
Jimmy Hendrix, musician
Joan of Arc, was accused of using witch herbs (another name for cannabis).
John Belushi, actor. Perhaps not a particularly good role model!
John Denver, musician. He recorded a song about it.
John F Kennedy. Politician.
John Lennon. musician.
John Le Mesurier. Actor. Tried it but said it's not for him.
John Wayne, Actor, "I tried it once but it didn't do anything to me."
Jonathan Miller, Theatre Director.
Johnny Cash, musician. Sang songs for NORML album.
Jon Snow, Channel 4 News presenter. (UK)
Julia Roberts, Actress, "I smoked dope twice," ..." It made me too sleepy..."
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, legendary Los Angeles Lakers Basketball star
Kary Mullis, Nobel Laurate, Biology. Is on NORML Board of directors.
Ken Kesey, Author of "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" (1975)
Kenneth Tynan, Playwright.
Kurt Cobain, musician.
Larry Hagman, actor, of "JR" fame.
Led Zeppelin, musicians.
Lenny Bruce, Comedian.
Lewis Carroll, Author
Lewis Wolpert, biologist.
Little Richard, musician.
Louis Armstrong, Jazz musician. The 'bust' in his own words.
Luke Perry, actor.
Louis Hebert, French Botanist
Mark Stepnoski. two-time Super Bowl champ, Dallas Cowboy.
Mick Jagger, musician
Mike Bloomberg. New York City Mayor.
Mike Tyson, Boxer.
Miles Davis, Jazz musician.
Milton Berle, Actor another one on the DEA list of smokers
Mo Mowlam, Minister recently in charge of UK drug policy.
Modigliani. Sculptor.
Montgomery Clift, actor, mentioned in his biography.
Neil Diamond, musician.
Neil Young, Musician.
Newt Gingrich Speaker of the US Senate.
Norman Mailer, Author.
Oasis, Noel Gallagher "smoking cannabis is as normal as having a cup of tea"
Ocean Colour Scene, "the hardest smoking band in music" Q Magazine. 02/02.
Oliver Stone, Film Director.
Oscar Wilde, Author. "Bosie and I have taken to hashish,"
Pablo Picasso, Artist.
Pancho Villa, Revolutionary Leader.
Peregrine Worthstone, former editor of the Sunday Telegraph.
Peter Fonda, actor. "I don't trust anybody who didn't inhale."
Peter Sellers, actor.
Peter Tosh, Poet.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Former Prime Minister of Canada.
Pink. Musician. Mentioned in Playboy interview (11/02).
Pink Floyd, Musicians.
P. J. O'Rouke. Author.
Pythagoras, Mathematician.
Queen Victoria.
Ram Dass, Philosopher.
Ray Charles, musician.
Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Laureate physicist.
Richard Pryor, actor.
Robert Anton Wilson. Philosopher .
Robert Mitchum, Actor, was jailed in the 40s for possession of marijuana.
Rolling Stones, musicians.
Rosie Boycott, former Editor of the Daily Express and The Independent.
Ross Rebagliati, first ever snowboarding Gold Medallist, 1998 Winter Olympics.
Rudolf Nureyev, Ballet dancer. Also see entry for Margot Fonteyn.
Rudyard Kipling . Author.
Ryan Farrell, Australian Sprint Car champion.
Salvador Dali, Artist.
Samuel Beckett, Author.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Author.
Sidi-Hidi. Sacred religious figure of Morocco, believed to have brought cannabis to the Atlas.
Sinead O'Connor, musician.
Sir Paul McCartney, Musician.
Sir Mick Jagger, Musician. Of whom it was written; "Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel".
Snoop Dogg, musician.
Steve Martin , Actor.
Stephen King. Author, "Tommy Knockers".
Steve Jobs, co-creator of the Apple computer.
Steven Soderbergh, Film director.
Stephen Sondheim. Broadway composer and lyricist.
Sting / Gordon Sumners, musician.
Ted Turner, of CNN fame. This is a claim made by Bill Maher that has not been denied
Terence McKenna.
Terry Pratchett. Author of the "Diskworld" books. A bit of a cheeky claim perhaps, in that he did not object to being given a "cake".
The Who, musicians.
Thelonious Monk, Jazz musician.
Timothy Leary
Tomas Enge, Formula 3000 World Champion.
Tommy Chong. Actor with Cheech Marin in "Up in Smoke " - "Cheech & Chong".
Tommy Lee, Musician.
Tony Booth, the father-in-law of Britain's Prime Minister. Smoked it in No 10.
UB40, Band.
Victor Hugo. Author 'Les Mis�rables'
Walter 'Stumpy' Brennan actor.
Walter Benjamin, Philosopher.
Wesley Snipes, actor. Has been seen in Cannabis Cafes.
Whitney Houston, musician.
William Butler Yeats. Famous Irish Poet and Occultist.
William S. Burroughs, Author.
William Shakespeare. Dramatist. More here.
Willie Nelson, musician.
Woody Harrelson, Actor and reformer.
Zoroaster, Persian prophet.
Eight UK Conservative Shadow Cabinet Ministers as well as some Liberal and Labour MPs.
Most popular Musicians since the turn of the 20th century. Even the boys from S Club 7!
You will find it's use mentioned in the Bible.
And now we are told even Stone age man may have used it.
http://www.slatts.fsworld.co.uk/famous.htm
Theyre all unproductive lazy apathetic forgetful losers, yeah?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq The average person hasnt got a clue about the real effects of drugs, regardless of their stance on the subject. Its only common knowledge because of government propaganda. I can tell u now that what u said is NOT TRUE. Just because its common knowledge doesnt mean its true. Heres some famous cannabis users...

everybody has smoked weed before, good for them, I guarantee you that most of the ones with difficult jobs weren't regular smokers

most of them are artists,people in the entertainment industry and that doesnt mean shit because being an artist isnt a real job where you have to mentally and physically work hard

its the working class that are most affected by the side effects of weed smoking, the joe blows that sit at home and smoke weed all day not looking for a job, not some exceptional famous people who make up 0.00000000001% of the population who have smoked a joint or two before...

quote:

Originally posted by jdjd everybody has smoked weed before, good for them, I guarantee you that most of the ones with difficult jobs weren't regular smokers most of them are artists,people in the entertainment industry and that doesnt mean shit because being an artist isnt a real job where you have to mentally and physically work hard its the working class that are most affected by the side effects of weed smoking, the joe blows that sit at home and smoke weed all day not looking for a job, not some exceptional famous people who make up 0.00000000001% of the population who have smoked a joint or two before...

Is there any point in me replying to u? No matter what i say, ur mind will just not be changed. Even if it does change, u probably wouldnt admit it anyway.
Just remember that a large percentage of the people u know and meet in life toke, without u ever knowing.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq Not so much nowadays. Although fairly recently some nutcase was talking about cannabis killing 30000 people a year in the uk.

Yeah, well that is a bogus study. Every now and then such a study appears. But the fact is that a large majority of government paid scientists arrived at the conclusion that marijuana isn't particularly harmful. Besides, was it a government paid or a private study?

quote:

Well in that case u havnt seen many studies. U would be surprised at some of the claims made.

I am aware of the rediculous claims. Again, I tend to believe what most scientists say, not what every "scientist" says.

quote:

Bollocks. Bronchitis yes, cancer NO. What about the possibility of cannabis curing cancer?

Depends on the amount. Clearly intaking a large amount of smoke into your lungs may cause cancer. Whether the odds are greater or lesser than those of cigarette smoking is a different issue. Now, about curing cancer, that's total nonsense. Cannabis is allowed to be used by cancer patients because it releaves pain, not because it cures cancer.

quote:

Theres a fucking HUGE difference in cannabis and tobacco. There was a study done in the 70s comparing the tar in tobacco and cannabis. Iirc it found that cannabis had 1.5 times as much tar as tobacco. But they tested the leaves of the plant, which people dont smoke, they smoke the buds which have (apparently) a 3rd as much tar as tobacco.

Yeah, well, since most people mix tobacco with cannabis as they smoke it, the risk of cancer is still there.

quote:

More importantly, cannabis tar is not radioactive.

And cigarette tar is??

quote:

Oh ffs.. There is some truth in the memory thing. All that is is that if ur really stoned sometimes u will forget what ur talking about when ur in the middle of a sentence. Then after about 5 seconds ull remember. This will only happen once or twice and usually only the first time u smoke after a long break. And its not a bad thing anyway, its actually a good thing, because ull be like "shit, what the fuck was i talking about there?" then ull laugh and remember it again.

Yeah, well, if you find it preferable to be senile, then all my arguments are hitting a brick wall. I guess there surely was someone who had a laugh when that german dude cut his dick off when he was tripping. The general consensus, however, is that memory loss is not a good thing.

quote:

Ahhh, that explains it.

Yeah, I'm a part of that huge conspiracy. Infact, I know all drugs are harmless, but I'm just telling you crap because I'm paid by the government to scare you.

quote:

Firstly, hes hardly gonna tell u that. Secondly, the government gets researchers that THEY KNOW know what results to get. And they will get these results, or they wont get any more money.

Firstly, he would be totally pissed off if someone interfered in his research and tried to modify the results. I know him enough to be pretty certain of that. Secondly, what's the point in researching if the results are already known? Thirdly they get the money for doing the research, not if that research results agree with the current social norms. Sure, they get more money if their research has resulted in some new discoveries, but it's not that the government tells them what the results should be. Come on, grow up, you've been reading way too much conspiracy theories. How would any progress be made if the research community would function in a way you describe it?

quote:

Oil companies have nothing to do with this.

They're a shining example of how private-funded research is often false.

quote:

They will if theyre biased.

Yeah, almost all researchers in the world are biased in a same way. Why didn't I think of that? Damn, it's a worldwide conspiracy. Funny how even the researchers in countries that are sometimes dependant on the export of narcotics also arrive at the same conclusions. I guess we should dismiss our entire scientific community because they are no good at all. They're all biased, everybody knows what results they'll get, they have high salaries, and additionally they get bribed by the government. This world would be so much better without science now, wouldn't it?

quote:

In other words, ur making stupid claims that u cant back up.

In other words you can't realize that obsucred funding is usually, well, obscured from the public view.

quote:

Glad u admit it.

sar�casm ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s�rkzm)
n.
A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

quote:

I never said it doesnt, i dont know if it does or not.

Yeah, well, that's why we have researchers and scientists to find that out.

quote:

Yeah, alcohol does.

Did I say it doesn't?

quote:

Ur fucking crazy. How the hell would maintenance doses of diamorphine or whatever cost more than 250 billion a year?

Maintainance doses+smaller workforce+larger criminal activity+more addicted children+more health workers..it adds up.

quote:

How can u prevent it?

I was talking from an individual point of view. From the global point of view we can decrease its use.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Yeah, well that is a bogus study. Every now and then such a study appears. But the fact is that a large majority of government paid scientists arrived at the conclusion that marijuana isn't particularly harmful. Besides, was it a government paid or a private study?

Cant remember

quote:

I am aware of the rediculous claims. Again, I tend to believe what most scientists say, not what every "scientist" says.

U believe what a lot of bsing scientists say.

quote:

Depends on the amount. Clearly intaking a large amount of smoke into your lungs may cause cancer. Whether the odds are greater or lesser than those of cigarette smoking is a different issue.

Go and find me 1 example of cannabis causing cancer. Cannabis has NEVER caused cancer.

quote:

Now, about curing cancer, that's total nonsense. Cannabis is allowed to be used by cancer patients because it releaves pain, not because it cures cancer.

Give me SOME credit ffs. I was talking about the guzman study:
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/11/07/article_kubby.htm

quote:

Yeah, well, since most people mix tobacco with cannabis as they smoke it, the risk of cancer is still there.

That has got absolutely nothing to do with it. Ur blaming cannabis for the effects of tobacco.

quote:

And cigarette tar is??

No of course not. Im talking shit, oh wise one.
Read this:
http://www.ukcia.org/research/cancer2.htm
After all this, u still saying cannabis causes cancer, or will u admit that u are wrong?

quote:

Yeah, well, if you find it preferable to be senile, then all my arguments are hitting a brick wall.

Senile? This is typical prohibitionist word twisting. Ur only making urself look stupid here. I shouldnt even waste my time with u.

quote:

I guess there surely was someone who had a laugh when that german dude cut his dick off when he was tripping.

U believed that?

quote:

The general consensus, however, is that memory loss is not a good thing.

Not this type of memory loss. Its not even memory loss really. Its more like absent mindedness. Just like if u walk into a room and say, what did i come in here for? Then u remember. Its caused by doing something and thinking about other things at the same time (u think a lot when ur stoned).

quote:

Yeah, I'm a part of that huge conspiracy. Infact, I know all drugs are harmless, but I'm just telling you crap because I'm paid by the government to scare you.

It wouldnt surprise me.

quote:

Firstly, he would be totally pissed off if someone interfered in his research and tried to modify the results. I know him enough to be pretty certain of that. Secondly, what's the point in researching if the results are already known?

Because its in the governments interests to keep illegal drugs illegal.

quote:

Thirdly they get the money for doing the research, not if that research results agree with the current social norms. Sure, they get more money if their research has resulted in some new discoveries, but it's not that the government tells them what the results should be. Come on, grow up, you've been reading way too much conspiracy theories. How would any progress be made if the research community would function in a way you describe it?

There are plenty of unbiased researchers.

quote:

They're a shining example of how private-funded research is often false.

Drugs are a special case.

quote:

Yeah, almost all researchers in the world are biased in a same way. Why didn't I think of that? Damn, it's a worldwide conspiracy. Funny how even the researchers in countries that are sometimes dependant on the export of narcotics also arrive at the same conclusions.

Tell me what governments are funded by selling illegal drugs. Apart from the americans.

quote:

I guess we should dismiss our entire scientific community because they are no good at all. They're all biased, everybody knows what results they'll get, they have high salaries, and additionally they get bribed by the government. This world would be so much better without science now, wouldn't it?

Not at all. Has the idea of u actually being wrong about all this ever entered ur head? U wont concede that ur wrong no matter what. Ur just like all the rest of the prohibitionists. Well almost all of them. Theres been a few who kept the debates intelligent and werent too proud to admit theyre wrong in the end.

quote:

In other words you can't realize that obsucred funding is usually, well, obscured from the public view.

So how do u know about it? What im asking for is evidence of drug producers funding drug research that shows positive effects of drugs. U made the claim so back it up, if u can. But u cant. Because it doesnt happen. And if (since) u cant, please admit that ur wrong and that u make anti drug claims that u make up on the spot.
Ill tell u why that doesnt happen. Drug producers and suppliers DONT WANT drugs legalised. It would put them out of business ffs. Of course they could keep doing it, but they would have to sell the drugs for less than what the government do (which would be less than 1/10 the current price for most drugs). So, there would be fuck all profit for them, because hardly anyone (if anyone at all) would buy from them, plus they would be selling the drugs for basically nothing.

quote:

Yeah, well, that's why we have researchers and scientists to find that out.

I know.

quote:

Did I say it doesn't?

No.

quote:

Maintainance doses+smaller workforce+larger criminal activity+more addicted children+more health workers..it adds up.

Ur talking bollocks, because u simply do not have a fucking clue about what ur talking about (believe me). And ur forgetting what i said earlier. Ive discussed this a million times with people. Ur not saying anything new. In other words, if i say something, like "how will it cost more", i already know all the possible prohibitionist responses (unless ur REALLY original), and i already know why those resposes are wrong. If i knew they were right, i would only be making myself look stupid by asking the question in the first place. U might wanna think about this before talking crap to me in future.
I have to say that u were slightly original, because i havnt heard the smaller workforce 1 before (unless u mean what i think u do, but ill give u the benefit of the doubt, even tho i know better than to do that). So please explain it to me.
Larger criminal activity??? Oh yeah. Pure drugs costing at the very least 10 times less than what they do now, and can be bought legally are available. But people will still go to dealers instead. Dealers will jump for joy when they hear the news that drugs have been legalised and are available for 1/10th the price they were when illegal. Their profits will multiply. Think before u type.
More addicted children, u say. Please explain why holland has less than half as many drug users (percentage wise) than nearly all countries that are 'tough on drugs'. Please explain why the average age of a heroin addict in holland is 42, but 21 everywhere else.
And finally, ur more health workers claim. Clean drugs + less users + proper eduction on how to use drugs safely = more health problems. Hmmm... Im having a bit of trouble working that 1 out to be honest. Can u help? Please?

quote:

I was talking from an individual point of view. From the global point of view we can decrease its use.

Yeah, by legalising.

quote:

Originally posted by jdjd you have no response so you insult, the discussion is done then.

it's true. when he gets cornered, he just flames. and when someone posts a valid comment, he buys time by saying "your stupid", and ultimately avoiding the topic. Fuq, take some political science if u want to learn how to make points...

...by the way, how can u fucking say "why would it happen", to my statement about increased incidents with the legalization of drugs? fucking moron. do i need to get out a fucking chalkboard? u know it's a valid point and well, if u don't want to answer it, then let the thread die so that other TAs don't have to listen to your petty insults and invalid feedback

by the way, repeat which question u want me to answer. and when i respond, take some paper out and take notes on how to express ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by djSlain it's true. when he gets cornered,

I havnt been cornered yet. Ive backed up just about every claim ive made, unlike u prohibitionists who have backed up nothing.

quote:

he just flames. and when someone posts a valid comment, he buys time by saying "your stupid", and ultimately avoiding the topic.

I have said things like ur stupid, but i still always give a 'proper' reply to what was said as well.
Lets be honest here. Read the thread. Does it sound like ur winning the argument?

quote:

Fuq, take some political science if u want to learn how to make points...

I think ive made my points pretty clearly.

quote:

...by the way, how can u fucking say "why would it happen", to my statement about increased incidents with the legalization of drugs? fucking moron.

Didnt u just flame me for name calling?

quote:

do i need to get out a fucking chalkboard?

No, u need to explain what u mean.

quote:

u know it's a valid point and well, if u don't want to answer it, then let the thread die so that other TAs don't have to listen to your petty insults and invalid feedback

Whatever. Troll.

quote:

Originally posted by djSlain by the way, repeat which question u want me to answer. and when i respond, take some paper out and take notes on how to express ideas.

U didnt reply to this.

quote:
Originally posted by djSlain
wouldn't it be safe to stop before something serious happens?

Of course. But its still relatively safe to take it.
quote:
I mean, i know everyone in their lives take risks, but is it really worth the wheelchair, a system failure, or hell, just seeing someone you know on the floor spazzing out...

Is walking across the road really worth the coffin?
quote:
my sister has had seizures in front of me, and i tell u, watching someone without control of their own body is absolutely horrifying. the worst part is that it's not only happened once, but several times in front of me. watching a friend go through that would take an absolutely toll on me

So wouldnt it be better to legalise it so the users can take pure mdma pills that dont contain things that can cause this?

isn't legalizing MDMA just another way for people to get killed. whether it be DUI, or doing one of the "darwin mistakes", chemical dependence, pushing the limits of MDMA inside the body (taking more and more pills to feel the high) and all that? someone had already posted the effects of alcohol, not only on the person doing the drugs, but to their family and friends. all we would be doing is putting tons of money into government programs for people to stop taking MDMA, much like all the Anonymous groups out there. more hospitals, more counseling, more tests.....$$$


u haven't been cornered? if u had facts, u wouldn't have to resort to insulting people; a bit on the defensive side?
o ya, i didn't mean to hurt ur feelings by insulting u as u might have tried to do to me. parent conference?

quote:

Originally posted by djSlain isn't legalizing MDMA just another way for people to get killed. whether it be DUI, or doing one of the "darwin mistakes", chemical dependence,

Its not addictive.

quote:

pushing the limits of MDMA inside the body (taking more and more pills to feel the high) and all that?

No, its not. I can understand why u might think certain bad things will automatically happen if legalisation happens. At first glance it might seem logical. But when u think about it, its not always or even usually the case.
Think about this. Legalisation doesnt mean more drug users. It means less (going by experience). U would know why if ud read what i posted earlier. It also means proper education for drug users, so they can use drugs safely (again, read what i said earlier).
Why would people who use drugs now suddenly abuse them as soon as they become legal?

quote:

someone had already posted the effects of alcohol, not only on the person doing the drugs, but to their family and friends.

Yes but thats alcohol. Alcohol is more dangerous, immediately and long term, than any illegal drug due to its effects.

quote:

all we would be doing is putting tons of money into government programs for people to stop taking MDMA, much like all the Anonymous groups out there.

Mdma is not addictive.

quote:

more hospitals, more counseling, more tests.....$$$

Read the thread (and this post, properly), i have already answered this. In short, ur wrong. And i have explained enough times WHY ur wrong. Even if u were right, theres no way in hell it would cost as much as the wo(s)d.

quote:

u haven't been cornered?

No, i havnt. Ive torn apart all the prohibitionist arguments so far. U would know that if ud read the whole thread. Obviously u havnt because ur asking/saying things that have already been answered/disproven.

quote:

if u had facts, u wouldn't have to resort to insulting people; a bit on the defensive side?

Im only using insults when it seems like people are deliberately trolling, or not listening to what im saying then talking shit.

quote:

o ya, i didn't mean to hurt ur feelings by insulting u as u might have tried to do to me. parent conference?

Are u willing to discuss this without insults? I am.
And im also willing to get right to the bottom of every single issue here. Are u?
This is when prohibitionists usually (well, always) start their tricks, because it gets to the point where its either 1, admit theyre wrong or 2, ignore things/flame/twist words etc.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq Alcohol is more dangerous, immediately and long term, than any illegal drug due to its effects.

Congratulations! Youve just officially proved you are the stupidest person on these boards. Thread Closed.

quote:

Originally posted by jdjd Congratulations! Youve just officially proved you are the stupidest person on these boards. Thread Closed.

U have just proved that u dont have a clue. This is about the 5th time uv trolled in this thread.
If im wrong, explain HOW and WHY and BACK IT UP!
Ur proving nothing by telling me im wrong and flaming.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq U believe what a lot of bsing scientists say.

Ya, ok. A large majority of scientists say the same thing because they're getting paid to say so by the government. I wonder how scientific breakthroughs are made

quote:

Go and find me 1 example of cannabis causing cancer. Cannabis has NEVER caused cancer.

Hmm, let's see when a patient with cancer comes into the hospital and the evil conspiring doctor asks him "do you use illegal substances such as marijuana", the patient is then of course going to say "why yes I do!". Correlation between tobacco and smoking is confirmed only because there are large amounts of smokers who smoke for a long time and are not afraid to say it publically.

quote:

Give me SOME credit ffs. I was talking about the guzman study: http://www.sierratimes.com/03/11/07/article_kubby.htm

Hmph, a research published from www.americanmarijuana.org? Now, I would believe you on this one, but come on, it's a university scientist we're talking about here! And we all know they're paid by the government to produce results which are already known in advance. Or at least that's whayt you keep saying.

quote:

That has got absolutely nothing to do with it. Ur blaming cannabis for the effects of tobacco.

That's because smoking pure cannabis is often difficult as it isn't as ignitable as tobacco. I do admit chances of getting lung cancer are smaller when smoking marijuana than when smoking tobacco. But that's only because very few people smoke 20 joints a day. Now, as far as tar goes, you say marijuana has only 33% amount of tar in comparison to the cigarettes. Well, ok, it's 1/3 as likely to cause cancer as a cigarette is.

quote:

No of course not. Im talking shit, oh wise one. Read this: http://www.ukcia.org/research/cancer2.htm After all this, u still saying cannabis causes cancer, or will u admit that u are wrong?

Yeah, from a UKCIA site, the cannabis legalization organization. Come on, it's like me posting anti-cannabis propaganda from a DARE homepage. Now, as far as radioactivity, even if that article is true (which is highly doubtful), that minimal radioactivity in tar is not the prime cause of lung cancer for cigarette smokers. It may add a bit to the harmful effects of smoking, but even tobacco smoke with no radioactive substances whatsoever causes cancer. If that weren't the case, then all that should be done would be to stop using that specific pesticide and the health of the nation would improve dramatically.

quote:

Senile? This is typical prohibitionist word twisting. Ur only making urself look stupid here. I shouldnt even waste my time with u.

Nah, only forgetful and dull. Well, not really a condition that is considered to be an optimal one. Infact I'm kinda wondering why I'm spending my time with a person who keeps coming up with all these bogus conspiracy theories.

quote:

U believed that?

No, of course not. All drugs are harmless and people who are tripping are usually in control of their actions and realize everything that is happening around them. It's just that the media agencies such as Reuters or Associated Press are also a part of that conspiracy so they keep bringing up stories such as these. Even some drug users are in this conspiracy, because many of them claim datura is very dangerous and are afraid to try it. I bet no heroine overdose case has ever been recorded either. It's just a make-believe.

quote:

Not this type of memory loss. Its not even memory loss really. Its more like absent mindedness. Just like if u walk into a room and say, what did i come in here for? Then u remember. Its caused by doing something and thinking about other things at the same time (u think a lot when ur stoned).

I know what kind of memory loss it is. I too live in a real world. And I know how people who smoke too much cannabis behave. Now, I personally am for the legalization of cannabis, regardless of what you may think, because it is a very mild drug and mainly because it is not addictive. But you can't say it has no bad effects whatsoever.

quote:

It wouldnt surprise me.

It doesen't surprise me that it wouldn't surprise you. Maybe if you'd get back to the real world you'd see the nonsense of what you're saying. I guess it's too much thinking on your part caused by a lot of cannabis use.

quote:

Because its in the governments interests to keep illegal drugs illegal.

Oh, yes, I forgot. It's in the governmet's interest to spend huge amounts of money to prevent the use of substances that are absolutely harmless and only boost the morale of the citizens. Not to mention that it's in the government's interest to cut itself from a potentially large tax income source.

quote:

There are plenty of unbiased researchers.

Ya, too bad you don't believe them.

quote:

Tell me what governments are funded by selling illegal drugs. Apart from the americans.

Hmm, as far as I know, Venezuela has a sort of a non-agression treaty between the drug cartels and the government. Most of Afghanistan farmers have their income generated from the opium producing poppies. Not to mention that half the latin america and many asian countries have drug dealers inflitrated in the highest ranks of the society.

quote:

Not at all. Has the idea of u actually being wrong about all this ever entered ur head? U wont concede that ur wrong no matter what. Ur just like all the rest of the prohibitionists. Well almost all of them. Theres been a few who kept the debates intelligent and werent too proud to admit theyre wrong in the end.

Yeah, ok. Most scientists present false research whose results are already known, drugs have very few negative side effects, most news agencies are completely controlled by the governments, and most governments in the world spend huge amounts of money to prevent people from using harmless substances. Yeah, it's all clear now. How couldn't have I seen that earlier?

quote:

So how do u know about it? What im asking for is evidence of drug producers funding drug research that shows positive effects of drugs. U made the claim so back it up, if u can. But u cant. Because it doesnt happen. And if (since) u cant, please admit that ur wrong and that u make anti drug claims that u make up on the spot. Ill tell u why that doesnt happen. Drug producers and suppliers DONT WANT drugs legalised. It would put them out of business ffs. Of course they could keep doing it, but they would have to sell the drugs for less than what the government do (which would be less than 1/10 the current price for most drugs). So, there would be fuck all profit for them, because hardly anyone (if anyone at all) would buy from them, plus they would be selling the drugs for basically nothing.

So, who would fund the independent researchers who claim that drugs are harmless? Anti-drug groups? Rich businessmen?

Legalizing drugs would not put drug producers out of business, although it would decrease their profit per kg of drug. If anything it would increase drug production and remove the fear of uncertanty or police interventions.

quote:

Ur talking bollocks, because u simply do not have a fucking clue about what ur talking about (believe me). And ur forgetting what i said earlier. Ive discussed this a million times with people. Ur not saying anything new. In other words, if i say something, like "how will it cost more", i already know all the possible prohibitionist responses (unless ur REALLY original), and i already know why those resposes are wrong.

Yeah, you know for fact how society would work if all drugs would become legalized. Why did I think otherwise?

quote:

If i knew they were right, i would only be making myself look stupid by asking the question in the first place.

Nah, you think you know they're wrong, but that doesn't make you much smarter.

quote:

U might wanna think about this before talking crap to me in future. I have to say that u were slightly original, because i havnt heard the smaller workforce 1 before (unless u mean what i think u do, but ill give u the benefit of the doubt, even tho i know better than to do that). So please explain it to me.

Abuse of drugs->decrease in ability to work->incompetent workers->workers get fired->smaller workforce. It happened in China in 19th century. China didn't have a strict law about narcotics. The british soon realized it's the ideal market for their opium export. That caused a huge amount of drug addicts and had a very bad impact on the national economy, because most of the workers only thought about getting high. Consequently, their work ability decreased dramatically. China then made opium illegal which led to the Anglo-Chinese war of 1839-1842. Here's a little example of where unprohibited drug use leads to:

quote:

In 1821, the district of Sarun, in Bihar province had between 5000 and 6500 acres of the poppies, by 1829 this had risen to 12,000 acres. At the companies depot the opium was pressed into fist-sized cake, wrapped in a crust of dried poppy leaves and packed into wooden chests. The average chest contained about 125 lbs . An opium addict was expected to consume 40 grains per day, one chest, therefore represented a month�s supply for 8,000 addicts. However it must be noted that addiction can come from twenty or even ten grains per day, At forty grains a day, an addict is in a very bad way. It is estimated that there were about between 10 and 12 million addicts in China by the 1840�s.Strangely, the East India Co. Always strove to minimise the addiction in India. It wrote in 1817 to the governor in Bengal expressing the hope that �His measurers would tend to restrain the use of this pernicious drug�. In the year they penned those words, the directors of the East India Co. Had sold over 500,000 lbs of opium to the Chinese smugglers. The East India Co. Treated the native growers as serfs. In 1839 he was paid three and a half rupees (6 shillings) for a 29.5 oz �seer� of raw opium. Hence he could hope to earn rather less than three pence a day during the harvest which rarely lasted more than a fortnight. A share-cropper with wife and three children might hope to gain 13 shillings as his years income from growing opium. In 1837 it cost the company about �15 to produce a chest of opium on its own territory and bring it to Calcutta. There it was auctioned to exporters. Theoretically the company�s responsibility for the opium ended at the Calcutta wharves. From 1800 to 1837 the company raked in average profits of 465% from its opium auctions in Calcutta. In 1830 a missionary at Canton noted, the booming trade off Lintin Island �the boats are but seldom interfered with as the �free traders� can afford to pay the mandarins so much better for not fighting than the government will for doing their duty. The Chinese coast from Macao to Chusan is now the cruising ground of twenty opium ships. In Macao besides several houses engaged in the sale of opium on a large scale, fifty or sixty smaller dealers distribute it in the �catty� or �cake� and the preparation of the drug for smoking - gives employment to ten time that number of Chinese. Because so many Cantonese were involved in the opium business, as middlemen, dealers, processors and smokers, the English traders enjoyed their support. In fact, Chinese sentiment in Canton did not turn against the English until 1841, when the hardships of war made themselves felt. Now opium had cancelled out China�s favourable trade balance, it paid for tea. The drain on China�s silver reserves threatened inflation and there was great friction between the official envoys in London, Peking and Canton.

quote:

Larger criminal activity??? Oh yeah. Pure drugs costing at the very least 10 times less than what they do now, and can be bought legally are available. But people will still go to dealers instead. Dealers will jump for joy when they hear the news that drugs have been legalised and are available for 1/10th the price they were when illegal. Their profits will multiply. Think before u type.

Again, look at the Opium War.

quote:

The Opium War, also called the Anglo-Chinese War, was the most humiliating defeat China ever suffered. In European history, it is perhaps the most sordid, base, and vicious event in European history, possibly, just possibly, overshadowed by the excesses of the Third Reich in the twentieth century. By the 1830's, the English had become the major drug-trafficking criminal organization in the world; very few drug cartels of the twentieth century can even touch the England of the early nineteenth century in sheer size of criminality. Growing opium in India, the East India Company shipped tons of opium into Canton which it traded for Chinese manufactured goods and for tea. This trade had produced, quite literally, a country filled with drug addicts, as opium parlors proliferated all throughout China in the early part of the nineteenth century. This trafficing, it should be stressed, was a criminal activity after 1836, but the British traders generously bribed Canton officials in order to keep the opium traffic flowing. The effects on Chinese society were devestating. In fact, there are few periods in Chinese history that approach the early nineteenth century in terms of pure human misery and tragedy. In an effort to stem the tragedy, the imperial government made opium illegal in 1836 and began to aggressively close down the opium dens.

quote:

More addicted children, u say. Please explain why holland has less than half as many drug users (percentage wise) than nearly all countries that are 'tough on drugs'. Please explain why the average age of a heroin addict in holland is 42, but 21 everywhere else.

Heroin is illegal in Holland afaik. The only legalized drug is marijuana and it's under strict control.

quote:

And finally, ur more health workers claim. Clean drugs + less users + proper eduction on how to use drugs safely = more health problems. Hmmm... Im having a bit of trouble working that 1 out to be honest. Can u help? Please?

No wonder you do because you've gotten it all wrong. Here's how it goes in reality: free drugs->MORE users->more need to educate people+more people needed to take care of them.

quote:

Yeah, by legalising.

Again, the Opium War shows what happens in those situations. Before 1836 opium was legal. It led to more than 10 million addicts.

Ive had enough of u. Ive told u enough times about the government researchers. Ur not listening, just making stupid sarcastic remarks.
Goodbye.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq Ive had enough of u. Ive told u enough times about the government researchers. Ur not listening, just making stupid sarcastic remarks. Goodbye.

Yeah, I guess you should find some independent historians to show what really happened in China. All these government paid ones just speak crap.

heres some proof that weed is DEADLY:

quote:

November 20, 2003 Texas Man Chokes to Death on Marijuana By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 10:44 a.m. ET FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) -- A man changing a flat tire choked to death on a bag of marijuana he had stuffed down his throat in an apparent attempt to hide it from police who stopped to help him, authorities said. Nickolas Sandoval, 24, died Wednesday. Officers were unaware at first Sandoval had drugs when they spotted him on the highway in Corinth, about 45 miles northeast of Fort Worth, said Corinth police Cpl. Frank Lott. ``Officers went from 'Oh, hey, here is someone with a flat tire' to 'Hey, this guy is choking,''' Lott told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Sandoval, of Ponder, was pronounced dead at a hospital. Cause of death: ``asphyxiation due to aspiration of plastic bag,'' according to a spokeswoman for the Tarrant County Medical Examiner's Office. Sandoval was convicted at least three times of marijuana possession, and pleaded guilty two years ago to a drunken-driving charge

I've never tried drugs, nor do I intend to. I say more power to people who use them. To each his own. There's drug addicts dying everyday, homeless out on the streets asking for money to buy "food for the kids." It's their life, let them F it up. If you can keep it under control, and try not to rape anyone, whoop dee doo, more power to you. Bottom line, if a drug user dies because of the abuse, it's their own fault. Drug users bring everything on themselves. If somebody that uses drugs thinks that they are not harmful, they're obviously pretty naive. I wish the government would stop wasting their time will all these pointless studies. Let them kill themselves instead of wasting money on research that's not even going to change how drug users feel about it. Isn't that the point of a study? To make people aware? All it does is it makes people say, "Jeeze, I'm sure glad I don't do that stuff." And then people who use drugs say, "Gosh, that's not true! What are they talking about? Educated scientists who have gone to college half their life learning about this stuff just don't know what they're talking about..."

quote:

Originally posted by BobbyV I wish the government would stop wasting their time will all these pointless studies. Let them kill themselves instead of wasting money on research that's not even going to change how drug users feel about it. Isn't that the point of a study? To make people aware? All it does is it makes people say, "Jeeze, I'm sure glad I don't do that stuff." And then people who use drugs say, "Gosh, that's not true! What are they talking about? Educated scientists who have gone to college half their life learning about this stuff just don't know what they're talking about..."

You've mentioned actually the ignorant 2 of 3 groups of people. There are also the people that consider using the drug, but don't given the information that is revealed through these studies... THAT is what makes these studies valuable, not for the ignorant people who refuse to take a drug thinking it has side effects it doesnt, or the ignorant people who DO take the drug refusing to believe there are side effects of it.

quote:

Originally posted by jdjd You've mentioned actually the ignorant 2 of 3 groups of people. There are also the people that consider using the drug, but don't given the information that is revealed through these studies... THAT is what makes these studies valuable, not for the ignorant people who refuse to take a drug thinking it has side effects it doesnt, or the ignorant people who DO take the drug refusing to believe there are side effects of it.

Well yeah, but does our society have to rely on scientists for common sense? An 8th grader should know how dangerous they are...

I'm really proud of you guys for typing out some of the most elaborate / time-consuming / etc ... cut-paste posts I've ever seen.

Drugs may cause mutations,but so does a lot of things on this earth...besides, mututations in the DNA is usually caught and discarded by the body...we arent primitive animals anymore

quote:

Originally posted by Silence_S Drugs may cause mutations,but so does a lot of things on this earth...besides, mututations in the DNA is usually caught and discarded by the body...we arent primitive animals anymore

That's not at all true but thanks for trying.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.