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

___________________
Thank You and Goodnight

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.

___________________
Thank You and Goodnight

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?

___________________
Thank You and Goodnight

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.

___________________
1+1=10

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