# Smoking Pot good for some?...



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

This study should irk a few...
But I believe in freedom of choice.


> A Swiss study reported in the November issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine finds that teenagers who smoke just marijuana seem to be better adjusted than teenagers who smoke tobacco as well as pot. Specifically, they are more likely to have good grades and to play sports, and they are less likely to get drunk, smoke pot heavily, or start smoking pot before age 15. The pot-only smokers also compared favorably in some respects to abstainers: They were more likely to attend high school, play sports, and have good relationships with friends, although they were also less likely to have good relationships with their parents and more likely to skip class and drink.
> 
> According to the logic applied by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse or the Office of National Drug Control Policy, we'd have to say, based on these results, that smoking pot leads to better friendships, lower dropout rates, and increased participation in athletics, while smoking tobacco makes you stupid and lazy. A more plausible explanation is that the sort of teenagers who smoke cigarettes are more inclined to use other drugs early and heavily, and less inclined to play sports or do well in school, than the sort of teenagers who smoke pot but not cigarettes. Likewise, the sort of teenagers who try pot may be more sociable than the sort who don't. According to the study, they are more "sensation seeking," which may have something to do with their participation in sports. In all likelihood, these correlations are due to personality traits and environmental factors, as opposed to the pharmacological effects of cannabis or tobacco.


Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > Does Smoking Pot Make You a Better Friend and Athlete?

Related story: ABC News: Marijuana: Not as Disruptive as Thought?
All in moderation I guess...


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

And this one: Study shows marijuana-smoking teens doing just fine, thank you


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

I'm confused.
Teens who drink underage are vilified. Teens that smoke pot are OK?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ErnstNL said:


> I'm confused.
> Teens who drink underage are vilified. Teens that smoke pot are OK?


No one who smokes pot is "OK".

Deluded perhaps, but not OK.

High perhaps, but not OK.

Drug impaired perhaps, but not OK.

The list goes on, but you get the idea.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> No one who smokes pot is "OK".
> 
> Deluded perhaps, but not OK.
> 
> ...


Exactly the same for drinkers.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> No one who smokes pot is "OK".
> 
> Deluded perhaps, but not OK.
> 
> ...


SINC, it is an interesting study - platitudes asides, maybe you should read it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

ErnstNL said:


> I'm confused.
> Teens who drink underage are vilified. Teens that smoke pot are OK?


I sure hope not.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> Exactly the same for drinkers.


Wrong. Alcohol is legal. BIG difference.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

SINC said:


> Wrong. Alcohol is legal. BIG difference.


Legalities aside, harm is done using either. The final years of development are crucial and why take the chance?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Wrong. Alcohol is legal. BIG difference.


So if "they" declare alcohol illegal in the morning, you'll stop drinking?

Would your perception of alcohol change overnight?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> So if "they" declare alcohol illegal in the morning, you'll stop drinking?
> 
> Would your perception of alcohol change overnight?


"That" won't happen.

Therefore, no perception change required.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> "That" won't happen.
> 
> Therefore, no perception change required.


Marijuana could be declared legal at some point. How about the perception if it was legal?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Lots of comparisons between tobacco vs. marijuana smokers. How about comparing non-smokers to marijuana smokers?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> Marijuana could be declared legal at some point. How about the perception if it was legal?


Ah, that's a new question. The other concerned alcohol.

Answer: If it is made legal, I would view it the same as alcohol. Why? Because that would be the new law that does NOT exist now.

I would still never use it though.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

lol... because it's illegal. that's rich.

ever j-walk?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kloan said:


> lol... because it's illegal. that's rich.
> 
> ever j-walk?


Comparing using an illegal substance to J-walking is not even close to reasonable.

And for the record, I cross at intersections.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

It most certainly is. Because you're using the excuse of it being illegal for the reason you feel it's bad or wrong.

How about because it kills motivation, makes some people lazy, or maybe the possibility of future health risks for long term use? Valid reasons to not support the use, but certainly not to make it criminal and throw people in prison for it.

But no, it's wrong because it's 'against the law'.  

Stick to your crosswalks then. But unless you've tried it and understand what it is and what it does, perhaps you really have no valid opinions on the subject, if the only reason you think it's bad is because it's illegal.

I don't smoke pot any more because it killed my motivation and kept me paranoid and anti-social, but I sure as s*** j-walk all the damn time, and no 'law' is going to stop me from doing it. 

As far as I'm concerned, laws aside, people should be able to choose what they put in their bodies.



> No one who smokes pot is "OK".
> 
> Deluded perhaps, but not OK.
> 
> ...


Your own words here man, you're contradicting yourself by saying there's a big difference between pot and alcohol, based on the fact that one is illegal and one isn't.

So what, everyone who drinks is "OK".

Deluded, but "OK".

High (drunk), but "OK".

Impaired, but "OK".

And why, because it's "legal".


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC, as in the other thread I think you are overlooking the point that this is a CHOICE we get to make as a society.

It is no different than the choices that were made to get rid of prohibition or any law for that matter. 

Society grows and advances over time.

The reality is that pot is less harmful to people and society than alcohol has PROVEN to be. 

What percentage of time do our police deal with alcohol related issues?

My choice is to legalize it, or as a minimum decriminalize it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kloan said:


> But unless you've tried it and understand what it is and what it does, perhaps you really have no valid opinions on the subject, if the only reason you think it's bad is because it's illegal.


I haven't tried assaulting anyone lately either, but I do know it is a bad choice, just like illegal drugs.



Vandave said:


> My choice is to legalize it, or as a minimum decriminalize it.


And my choice is to leave it for what it is IMO, a plague on society.

I can understand you both have opinions, even though I don't agree with them and I will leave it at that with no further comment.

I'd appreciate the same courtesy back.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> I haven't tried assaulting anyone lately either, but I do know it is a bad choice, just like 'illegal drugs'.


LMFAO!! :lmao: 

Hahahah!!! Equating inflicting harm on another human being to casual use of a natural herb grown from the earth (hah, well.. it USED to be anyway....)

No, you're right. It's best to refrain from responding to any more of your posts. With that kind of logic, there's really no point in discussing 'controversial' subjects like this. I'm the kind of person who usually ends up losing my cool over it, and there's really no point in that, is there? :baby: 

Thanks for the laugh though.... :lmao:


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

kloan said:


> LMFAO!! :lmao:
> 
> Hahahah!!! Equating inflicting harm on another human being to casual use of a natural herb grown from the earth (hah, well.. it USED to be anyway....)
> 
> ...


Kloan, please relax a little. Please see this post if you haven't already. 

==============

SINC, do you think marijuana is a plague on society, more so than alcohol?
I know a lot of people who use alcohol, and a lot of people who use marijuana, and I anecdotally, I see far more problems with alcohol.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

hey, i'm relaxed.. 

i've learned it doesn't matter, people will believe what they want.. no matter what facts or fiction dictate.


----------



## Aurora (Sep 25, 2001)

The subject is not that cut and dried. (bad expression maybe). My daughter was diagnosed with cervical cancer five years ago. They got the cancer but the chemo and radiation caused havoc with her body. She is on a high doseage of morphine daily along with other drugs for pain. The only thing that lets her sleep with any modicum of normality is marijuana. Thank God it is supplied by Health Canada under our healthcare rules and we don't have to worry about it being laced with other crap. So there are reasons for its use. As an aside, most pot smokers are too laid back to commit crimes.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

kloan said:


> hey, i'm relaxed..
> 
> i've learned it doesn't matter, people will believe what they want.. no matter what facts or fiction dictate.


Some people are more set in their ways than others. I don't mean that as the slightest insult to SINC, he'd probably be the first to admit that's true. 

Others are more open minded. I've changed a lot of my opinions over the years. 

I do know that getting testy with the person your discussing with is not a good way to change opinions.  

----

I read the study and the results are interesting, but it doesn't appear to say why they think the results are the way they are.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

ehMax said:


> I do know that getting testy with the person your discussing with is not a good way to change opinions.


Ya, you're right...

When someone compares smoking pot to assaulting someone, it's time to for me to move on.. there's really no point saying anything else.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> Some people are more set in their ways than others. I don't mean that as the slightest insult to SINC, he'd probably be the first to admit that's true.
> 
> Others are more open minded. I've changed a lot of my opinions over the years.
> 
> I do know that getting testy with the person your discussing with is not a good way to change opinions.


You're right in that I too recognize there are those who will never change their minds. I've changed my mind on some things, but NOT drugs.

My father was a police officer, as are two dear friends. The stories they have told me over the years don't change my mind on the harm drugs do to society.

The single biggest being the dealers who kill and steal to achieve their ends, mostly big wads of cash and fancy cars and women.

A friend, 76 and just out of hospital with colon cancer, has a son who manages a club in the city. The son tells us of his every day battles with gang members and dealers who make his establishment their home base and thumb their noses at both the owners and the cops. (Sometimes by flashing hand guns at the owners.)

The whole scenario is one I detest and any legalization of this crap will be a sad day indeed in this country.

People who buy and use pot, knowingly or not, add to the problem. Most deny it or plead ignorance. They are worse than the thugs who control the drug trade. They don't seem to realize that the small amounts they buy on the street fuel the large amounts distributed in the country collectively.

So no, I am unlikely to change my mind.

Ask the dead Mountie's family in Hay River what they think of the drug trade, or can you stand to hear the answer?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MasterBlaster said:


> What is your opinion on police who get corrupt and skim money from drug deals?


Scum. Pure and simple.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> You're right in that I too recognize there are those who will never change their minds. I've changed my mind on some things, but NOT drugs.
> 
> ...
> 
> Ask the dead Mountie's family in Hay River what they think of the drug trade, or can you stand to hear the answer?


SINC, I know we've been over this territory before, but can you not see that all of the harm to society that just described in your post is not the result of the use of marijuana, but is the result of the prohibition of marijuana? The poor Mountie's family was not a victim of marijuana, but a victim of drug dealers financed and strengthened by the useless prohibition of a fairly innocuous drug.

All of these things that you describe were exactly the kind of harm that was caused when alcohol was under prohibition in the US, criminal gangs, thugs with guns and cop killers. This is precisely why many law enforcement professionals are starting to come around to the notion that this battle cannot be won and only costs us all much more in wasted money and wasted lives the way it is.

We can debate the actual danger of marijuana itself which is minimal compared to the cost of prohibition. One day our society will come to its senses and end the farce of prohibition. The US will even eventually follow, probably after a decade of trying to fight it off.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

Alcohol prohibition. Didja favour that, too? Drug dealers (as the old mafia rum runners) get rich because govt delegitimizes it. There is a need for the product and they reap the benefits. If alcohol got banned all of a sudden, would you cry murder?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> We can debate the actual danger of marijuana itself which is minimal compared to the cost of prohibition. One day our society will come to its senses and end the farce of prohibition. The US will even eventually follow, probably after a decade of trying to fight it off.


Not likely GA, that's largely better described as a "users wish".

The use of so called "soft drugs" leads to the use of so called hard drugs. It is a natural progression and as long as we keep soft drugs tightly controlled, it will same millions from addiction to hard drugs.

Either way, soft or hard, drugs make victims of users at any level.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

kloan said:


> It's best to refrain from responding to any more of your posts. With that kind of logic, there's really no point in discussing 'controversial' subjects like this. I'm the kind of person who usually ends up losing my cool over it, and there's really no point in that, is there?


Legality of pot aside, this:


> Specifically, they are more* likely to have good grades and to play sports, and they are less likely to get drunk, smoke pot heavily, or start smoking pot before age 15.* The pot-only smokers also compared favorably in some respects to abstainers: They were more likely to attend high school, play sports, and have good relationships with friends, although they were also less likely to have good relationships with their parents and more likely to skip class and drink.


Seems to negate much of the stereotypes some have formed about pot users. 

But not having a "taboo"* outlook on the drug, they seem to be able to smoke in moderation. 
I'm always surprised by North American kids who seem to go nuts when they get their hands on alcohol compared to French kids who have no problem with alcohol consumption. I'm not saying that French kids don't get drunk.

* Our own kids are offered wine or beer at supper and usually decline saying they don't like the taste. I think they will see wine as a compliment to enjoying a meal, not a tool to get drunk...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> The whole scenario is one I detest and any legalization of this crap will be a sad day indeed in this country.
> 
> People who buy and use pot, knowingly or not, add to the problem. Most deny it or plead ignorance. They are worse than the thugs who control the drug trade. They don't seem to realize that the small amounts they buy on the street fuel the large amounts distributed in the country collectively.


Legalizing drugs would eliminate most of the problems you describe.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> *The use of so called "soft drugs" leads to the use of so called hard drugs.* It is a natural progression and as long as we keep soft drugs tightly controlled, it will same millions from addiction to hard drugs.


That has never been proven and is totally false on your part SINC. 
It's a disservice to state such an untruth.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> That has never been proven and is totally false on your part SINC.
> It's a disservice to state such an untruth.


Disservice my butt. I'm simply stating what I believe from my life's experience.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Wrong. Alcohol is legal. BIG difference.


That's because so many marriages get ruined because of drinking issues right?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> That's because so many marriages get ruined because of drinking issues right?


No one mentioned marriage in the thread, but I'll play along. I've seen far more marriages destroyed by drugs than by alcohol in my lifetime.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> No one mentioned marriage in the thread, but I'll play along. I've seen far more marriages destroyed by drugs than by alcohol in my lifetime.


Well lets take that apart since you want to play. Of those marriages "destroyed" how many were because of marijuana specifically?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Not likely GA, that's largely better described as a "users wish".
> 
> The use of so called "soft drugs" leads to the use of so called hard drugs. It is a natural progression and as long as we keep soft drugs tightly controlled, it will same millions from addiction to hard drugs.
> 
> Either way, soft or hard, drugs make victims of users at any level.


I'm not a user, if that's what you're implying. I have used marijuana, as well as a few other drugs, but they don't really interest me now. I rarely drink as well, only having a rare beer or wine and usually never more than one or two. I don't smoke tobacco either. My main drug is caffeine and I prefer to avoid the withdrawal symptoms. The police who make up LEAP are not users either, just other concerned members of our society.

My concern on this issue is the waste of money and of lives and the corruption of our society that flows from prohibition. There was another gang shooting in Vancouver early this morning, two people in an intersection had their car sprayed with bullets, fortunately no bystanders caught one. This is madness.

Soft drugs do not lead to hard drugs, there is no evidence to support that. Prohibition does nothing to stem the tide of addiction. Those people will get addicted to hard drugs or alcohol whether it is illegal or legal. If made legal at minimum those users won't be hurting the rest of us by enabling a huge criminal underground to bring them their product. At best those users won't be living as criminals and getting involved in crime to serve their habit, or overdosing on bad drugs mixes and possibly have a real chance of getting off the drugs if they want. The status quo will continue to make many more Mountie's wives widows.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Here is something to put things in perspective. 

This diagram illustrates cannabis in relation to other narcotics. These results come from "The Lancet" which is recognized as one of the oldest peer reviewed medical journals.

Full discloser... my source was Wikipedia.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Actually I like this one better...

Cigarette smoking as a predictor of alcohol and ot...[J Sch Health. 1993] - PubMed Result

Cigarette smoking as a predictor of alcohol and other drug use by children and adolescents: evidence of the "gateway drug effect".


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> That has never been proven and is totally false on your part SINC.
> It's a disservice to state such an untruth.


It could very well be a gateway drug... but so can cigarettes or alcohol, or just about anything that one can consume that has an altering affect on the body and/or mind.

When someone experiences a high, it's an exillerating impact on the question.. if this makes me feel this way, I wonder what this one would do?

It really boils down to the individual. It's just a bandaid to try to eliminate the so-called 'source' of the problem, when in fact the problem lies with the individuals who abuse the substances to begin with. Let's face it, if you're in an unhappy state, feeling depressed, self destructive or whatever the case may be, you can just about misuse anything in life, doesn't have to be drugs.

I've had many incredible experiences with drugs, and plenty not-so-nice trips. I've learned a LOT about myself and why I did what I did, and moved on from them addiction free, and relatively strong state of mental health .

I think the problem is a lot of people aren't aware of their own abilities to reflect on themselves and figure out why they're doing what they're doing so they too can move on from it.

So instead of educating people, and I mean truely educating people, not just saying 'drugs are bad... mm k?', they just say well, let's make it illegal, problem solved.

It's just not that simple.

For pot smokers, grow yer own stone. At least you're not supporting the drug related violence by purchasing from dealers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm not a user, if that's what you're implying.
> 
> The status quo will continue to make many more Mountie's wives widows.


No, I was using the expression in general times, certainly not directed at you GA.

The status quo is sad indeed in that criminals and users alike won't disappear if drugs are legalized. It will only get worse. I can't even imagine neighbourhood drug dens for on site consumption and retail outlets for take home.

And finally, I am absolutely astounded that so many here openly admit to anything from trying drugs once, to casual use, to over consumption and bad trips.

I find the whole thing disgusting.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Here is something to put things in perspective.
> 
> This diagram illustrates cannabis in relation to other narcotics. These results come from "The Lancet" which is recognized as one of the oldest peer reviewed medical journals.
> 
> Full discloser... my source was Wikipedia.


Interesting chart. Besides a few youthful experiments with cocaine, it appears that the most dangerous drugs I have tried have been alcohol and tobacco, both legal.

I would dispute the harm value of heroin though. The chart should more correctly be labelled "Street Heroin" since the physical harm that comes from heroin is exclusively from the chemicals it is cut with and the fact that addicts can't always tell how large a dose they are getting, thereby risking overdose. It has been shown that a person can take clean, measured doses of heroin and be free of any physical harm besides the actual addiction.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

The problem with this is that things will eventually boil down to a left wing vs. right wing argument. The problem with this is that the side opposed to marijuana is so irrational and hypocritical (when compared to levels of alcoholism) that this will become another one of those deeply divisive arguments.

What people fail to see (and one would think that a western Canadian perspective would be more pragmatic) that the real issues should be focusing on crystal meth and teen alcoholism.

It's easy to pick on marijuana as a problem area because it is currently illegal. So was alcohol in certain areas of the US during the 1920's. Times and attitudes change, prior to Canada's "New Government" (how old can something be before it can't be called new?) getting elected Canada was well on its way to adopting new attitudes toward the use of marijuana.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> No, I was using the expression in general times, certainly not directed at you GA.
> 
> The status quo is sad indeed in that criminals and users alike won't disappear if drugs are legalized. It will only get worse. I can't even imagine neighbourhood drug dens for on site consumption and retail outlets for take home.


You're making a leap in logic that if drugs were legalized usage would increase. I don't see why that would be true, the people who want to throw away their lives being addicted to stuff, legal or illegal, are already doing that as much as they want right now.

Criminals will never disappear, but taking away drug profits from them will de-monetize a lot of them. Robbing banks and so forth is a far harder and less profitable route to money making than the easy wealth that can be made from the drug trade.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> The status quo is sad indeed in that criminals and users alike won't disappear if drugs are legalized. It will only get worse. I can't even imagine neighbourhood drug dens for on site consumption and retail outlets for take home.


What do you base that argument on? Did organized crime get worse before or after prohibition? Or was it prohibition itself that gave organized crime the economic foothold it needed to branch into other areas like hard narcotics?

How much organized crime is focused on the alcohol industry today?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> The problem with this is that things will eventually boil down to a left wing vs. right wing argument. The problem with this is that the side opposed to marijuana is so irrational and hypocritical (when compared to levels of alcoholism) that this will become another one of those deeply divisive arguments.


I don't think that this is a left/right thing. I noticed that earlier in this thread Vandave (not exactly a commie  ) made a post in support of legalization. The LEAP site that I linked to in earlier posts is made up of law enforcement pros, many of whom you can be sure are not liberals. Milton Freidman, Reagan's economic guru was on LEAP's board. Dr. Ron Paul in the US is a right wing libertarian running for President who supports an end to prohibition.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I don't think that this is a left/right thing. I noticed that earlier in this thread Vandave (not exactly a commie  ) made a post in support of legalization. The LEAP site that I linked to in earlier posts is made up of law enforcement pros, many of whom you can be sure are not liberals. Milton Freidman, Reagan's economic guru was on LEAP's board. Dr. Ron Paul in the US is a right wing libertarian running for President who supports an end to prohibition.


Hallelujah Brother... lets get this thing done and move onto solving some real issues.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> How much organized crime is focused on the alcohol industry today?


Biker gangs for example, have controlling interests in bars and strip clubs right across the country and use them as distribution points for their trade in illegal drugs.

Asian gangs control licensed restaurants and lounges in cities and towns for the same purpose, as do Caribbean bars and cubs.

Get to know a few law enforcement types. It's not hard to find this information,


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Biker gangs for example, have controlling interests in bars and strip clubs right across the country and use them as distribution points for their trade in illegal drugs.
> 
> Asian gangs control licensed restaurants and lounges in cities and towns for the same purpose, as do Caribbean bars and cubs.
> 
> Get to know a few law enforcement types. It's not hard to find this information,


But that isn't the alcohol industry is it? In Ontario we have the LCBO and the Beer store (some exceptions for Wine boutiques). Organized crime has ZERO involvement in this industry (well maybe on the Union and shipping end, who knows).

So what you are saying is that these "alcohol" establishments are the root cause for illegal narcotic distribution? So shouldn't we be shutting down places like this? I mean it all starts with alcohol by your argument.

PS. you aren't the only one who knows people in Law Enforcement. I don't know about the West, but here in Ontario, the Mob owns the strip clubs and the Bike Gangs bring in the girls (mostly from Montreal).


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> And finally, I am absolutely astounded that so many here openly admit to anything from trying drugs once, to casual use, to over consumption and bad trips.
> 
> I find the whole thing disgusting.


Why are you so surprised? Not all drug users, past or present, are scoundrels, thieves, murderers, rapists, liars, cheats, and generally scum of the earth. Doctors, humanitarians, teachers..... there's a much wider spectrum of people who have either experimented with drugs or are a casual user, than some would care to acknowledge.

Maybe if more people were honest and would talk openly about their experiences without fear of reactions just like this, perhaps more people could learn from others and make more educated choices.

I was fortunate to have very open minded parents who shared their experiences with me, and offered guidance when needed. Because of them and without a stern fist to irrationally punish my choices, I made it out just fine.

It's these kind of closed minded reactions that will ultimately keep many things hidden away from open discussions and the possibility to move forward.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Get to know a few law enforcement types. It's not hard to find this information,





> A more reasonable model of substance control other than outright prohibition could usher in honest education about drug use/abuse - something that is more realistic to the type of person who would kill a nun for her cell phone. (referring to the subject of this letter) Something that goes beyond the limited policy of "just say no to drugs."
> 
> Under regulation, there could be licensed points of sale, age limits and guaranteed product safety by taking the manufacture and distribution of narcotics out of the hands of untrained and unscrupulous criminals and place it within the realm of professionals. Products could be subject to taxation. Terrorist gangs ( here and abroad ) would lose their major source of funding.


That quote was from Constable John Gayder, Niagara Falls, ON.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kloan said:


> I was fortunate to have very open minded parents who shared their experiences with me, and offered guidance when needed. Because of them and without a stern fist to irrationally punish my choices, I made it out just fine.
> 
> It's these kind of closed minded reactions that will ultimately keep many things hidden away from open discussions and the possibility to move forward.


And therein lie the differences between you and I in opinion.

I had parents who also shared their experiences with me, both WWII vets who saw the real horrors of this world and taught me to avoid them. The use of a stern fist is what is lacking in too many of today's youngsters who have grown to believe permissiveness is the norm and without consequence.

If drug experimentation and bad trips are part of that type of fostered rearing, I draw the line there.

I have no respect for the end result.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

kloan said:


> Why are you so surprised? Not all drug users, past or present, are scoundrels, thieves, murderers, rapists, liars, cheats, and generally scum of the earth. Doctors, humanitarians, teachers..... there's a much wider spectrum of people who have either experimented with drugs or are a casual user, than some would care to acknowledge.


I think he was referring to my unrepentant use of caffeine and the fact that I so brazenly admit to not wanting to kick the habit. 

But seriously, when I was 17, I spent several Friday and Saturday nights trying to get really high. The drug was beer, rye whiskey, lemon gin (gaaaa.....) and anything else I could get my hands on. From what I could tell, it was *the* major hobby at my high school in Hamilton. I also first tried marijuana and hashish then. Definitely my dabbling in drunkenness probably got me far closer to getting into serious life-threatening trouble than my experiments with cannabis. Fortunately I didn't drive or own a car back then. 

My alcohol experimentation was definitely "disgusting". Various kinds of sickness resulted as well as much loud and stupid partying. I can offer no other excuse than to say that I was 17 and following along with the crowd. My experiments with marijuana were far more interesting. Although I was the same dumb kid, I found that there was an extra dimension to the music I listened to and that I saw things in the art that I admired that I had never noticed before. Unlike the alcohol, I tended to be a lot quieter when using cannabis and even enjoyed just talking with my friends, rather than screaming with them.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> If drug experimentation and bad trips are part of that type of fostered rearing, I draw the line there.
> 
> I have no respect for the end result.


That's OK I have no respect for the results of chronic alcoholism and binge drinking hidden under the thin veil that it is "Legal, so it must be OK for the individual and the society". 


Estimates of the economic costs of alcohol abuse, collected by the World Health Organization, vary from one to six per cent of a country's GDP. One Australian estimate pegged alcohol's social costs at 24 per cent of all drug abuse costs; a similar Canadian study concluded alcohol's share was 41 per cent.

http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_status_report_2004_overview.pdf

Alcohol imposes a high economic cost on society. One estimate puts the yearly economic cost of alcohol abuse in the United States to be US $ 148 billion, including US$ 19 billion for health care expenditure. In Canada, the economic cost of alcohol amount to approximately US$ 18.4 billion, representing 2.7 per cent of the gross domestic product. Studies in other countries have estimated the cost of alcohol-related problems to be around one percent of the gross domestic product. 

http://www.searo.who.int/LinkFiles/Facts_and_Figures_ch5.pdf

Let's let everyone else decide what is disgusting, eh?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> I have no respect for the end result.


SINC, I don't have respect for or approve of a lot of things in our society, yet I recognize that people have the right to indulge in them if it floats their boat and doesn't infringe on my rights. What is it that makes marijuana use by some, whether you or I like it or not, inherently anyone else's business? What is the real basis for it's continued prohibition? Is there actually a good reason for it to be against the law other than the fact that it's been illegal since the 1920s or so?


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> And therein lie the differences between you and I in opinion.
> 
> I had parents who also shared their experiences with me, both WWII vets who saw the real horrors of this world and taught me to avoid them. The use of a stern fist is what is lacking in too many of today's youngsters who have grown to believe permissiveness is the norm and without consequence.
> 
> ...


Did they approve? No.. but they let me make these decisions on my own. It's not necessary to lay the smack down if you disagree with choices your child makes.. there are much better ways to handle it. 

I think they did a great job, and I'm quite content with the end result.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Get to know a few law enforcement types.





> Hunter McDonald grew up in Scotland, where the drug of choice was alcohol, which fueled the country's violence. His family emigrated to Canada in 1965, when he was 21. Interested in serving his new country and helping its people, Hunter first joined the St. Boniface Police Department in Winnipeg, Manitoba, then the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 1969. During his law-enforcement career, he spent many years living and working on reservations - where he again witnessed alcohol as a major factor in violence. But he also gained first-hand experience with the failure of prohibitionist policies. "We tried to 'interdict' booze from pubs and liquor stores," he recalls, "but if people couldn't get any, they made their own 'moose milk.' Many people died or went blind from using wood alcohol and antifreeze to give it a boost." In short, he saw that in response to prohibition, many people found ways to feed their addictions that caused even worse medical and policing problems. Hunter came to the realization that "we need to accept that nothing can stop people from getting what they want. The money and lives lost trying to stop them has been a waste. Some of my retired cop buddies agree. The ones who don't cannot offer any solution, just the status quo."


Hunter McDonald, retired RCMP officer, Victoria BC


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Get to know a few law enforcement types.





> Once again, rather than being an advocate for the use of marijuana, I am simply a believer in the fact that personal choice and proper parenting should be the parameters for a substance that is clearly less harmful than alcohol, which is of course legal and easily accessible.
> 
> According to recent crime statistics, it is estimated that the federal and provincial governments spend between $300 million and $500 million a year enforcing the law against simple possession of cannabis. Now maybe Canadians have become used to hearing about such amounts of money, but I know that a lot of communities, particularly those where aboriginal peoples reside, could make much better use of such funds.
> 
> It's about time that we get over the stigma associated with many of the false assumptions that dominate this debate, and pragmatically move forward on eliminating pot prohibition.


Senator Larry Campbell
former RCMP Drug Squad member
former Mayor of Vancouver


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I knew a couple classmates who were potheads who could not study while sober. They had to be high. They both graduated with a higher GPA than me. Go figure.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It's time I bowed out of this debate. I think I have made my position clear enough for all to understand. I am not alone in my views and I doubt I will ever live to see legalization of drugs. Thank goodness for that. -30-


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

You'll always find stories of the "Pothead that did great in life", just like the "Person smoked tobacco all his life and is 105 years old", and "Alcoholic leads normal life and is 97 years old". There are always exceptions to the rule.

When you say to your kids that trying marijuana is okay, it won't hurt them, then their chiclet little brains tell them they can try other stuff like crystal meth (can be instantly addictive), extasy (which can kill them with one try), or crack (also instantly addictive). 

Heck, if they want to stay away from the illegal stuff, they could steal an Oxycodone from mom's medicine cabinet (Oxycodone is considered a poor man's heroine).


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> It's time I bowed out of this debate. I think I have made my position clear enough for all to understand. I am not alone in my views and I doubt I will ever live to see legalization of drugs. Thank goodness for that. -30-


Just because I like getting the last word in. I foresee that within my lifetime, marijuana will be decriminalized n Canada. I will go so far as to see it within the next 2 decades.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

There is an interesting documentary that just came out and is doing the rounds. It has won a number of awards so far. 

YouTube - The Union: the business behind getting high

TheUnionWeb

It's worth having a look at.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> There is an interesting documentary that just came out and is doing the rounds. It has won a number of awards so far.
> 
> YouTube - The Union: the business behind getting high
> 
> ...


Very cool. Thanks man!


----------



## kwmike (Oct 25, 2006)

I am a recovering addict, any members of Narcotics Anonymous will recognize my avatar. My drug of choice was pot, I smoked it every day from 1983 to 2001. During this time I got married and had four children, and making a decision to quit, cost me my marriage. 
Had my drug of choice been cocaine, speed, or heroin, the damage it would do to my life would be quite evident early in my addiction. Pot, always made me believe everything was okay for years. I robbed myself of the opportunity to mature emotionally and spiritually by masking my feelings with pot. I was 13 when I started to use chronically, I didn't even know who I was at that age, and stumbled through life for the next 18 years with the self centeredness of a 13 year old boy. I built a marriage with a woman who was also a pothead. We didn't know who we were as individuals, how could we have possibly built a strong family together? I remember going to the dealer's place before the grocery store, giving the dealer cash for pot and going to the church for diapers, spending most of the monthly check paying the dealer for the pot he fronted me throughout the month, getting eviction notices and utilties cut because I was paying the dealer before the bills.

POT IS THE WORSE DRUG EVER!!

I quit and the wife decided I was the problem, not the drugs, and we parted ways. Here it is 6 years later, I am clean and have my children living with me, I have a nice home and a nice job, bills are paid and I have a credit card in my wallet. Here it is 6 years later and my ex wife has lost the children to CAS three times before losing them for good, she has been in a mental institution two times, arrested once, she has had 9 different homes, she still thinks pot is not the problem and no doubt, she has a bag on her right now and a disconnect notice for hydro in the mail.

For all you people that think pot is fine, GOOD LUCK!
For all you pot dealers out there, I hope you enjoy your life built on the misery of others, you [email protected] GOOFS!


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> Apple computers great visionary Steve Jobs gives much credit to his vision to both occult practices and LSD trips.


Whether fact or not I can't be sure but Jobs has been quoted as saying the trouble with Gates is he never did enough....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

kwmike said:


> POT IS THE WORSE DRUG EVER!!


Maybe for you, but not for others. 

For every pot user with your story, there are at least 10 alcoholics with a similar story.

It sounds like you were struggling with other issues and pot was more a symptom or a way of self medication. Pot probably wasn't the cause of your problems, rather it was other things in life.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Maybe for you, but not for others.
> 
> For every pot user with your story, there are at least 10 alcoholics with a similar story.
> 
> It sounds like you were struggling with other issues and pot was more a symptom or a way of self medication. Pot probably wasn't the cause of your problems, rather it was other things in life.


Don't blame the pot! NAH! That can't be the problem! Pot is never a problem, right?!? I mean, a couple of potheads can't get their life together, money is being wasted on getting high, but don't blame pot! It was something else...maybe...hey that shiny thing over there. That could be to blame, 'cause marijuana is cool, and doesn't hurt anyone.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Don't blame the pot! NAH! That can't be the problem! Pot is never a problem, right?!? I mean, a couple of potheads can't get their life together, money is being wasted on getting high, but don't blame pot! It was something else...maybe...hey that shiny thing over there. That could be to blame, 'cause marijuana is cool, and doesn't hurt anyone.


Addiction is the problem.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

This thread seems to be nearing the end of it's natural life... all the usuall suspects have trotted out their usual arguments (except me... but you can take my position on this issue as read), and no one has changed their minds one whit.

Since the topic nears it's demise, I'll unabashedly derail the thread and set up a new contention...

Not to pick on SINC, but he best characterizes the Law-and-Order position that something is acceptable because it's legal. Several others have taken the diametrically opposed position of the extreme libertarian: Sod the law... as long as I'm not infringing on anyone else's rights, what business does the state have regulating my behavior?

So what say you all? To what extent does the fact that something is illegal weigh on your mind when you consider an action.

And, more broadly, how important is it that we ensure our legislators do not pass laws prohibiting harmless activity, and that they do pass legislation prohibiting harmful activity? If there were no laws, how much would your behavior change?

Cheers


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> No one who smokes pot is "OK".
> 
> Deluded perhaps, but not OK.
> 
> ...


I am not OK?? And deluded??
I don't really see how smoking pot makes me either of those... high and drug impaired, can't argue with that!

However, I have been smoking pot since I was 16. I was an honor student in grade 11 and 12, graduated with Honors and Work Effort List of Distinction.
I run my own business and I am IT Manager for a TV production company, I have been told I am very smart (Though I just consider myself average, I don't need a big ego ) and I am a hard worker.

Just because you smoke pot does not mean you are some stoner who does nothing but eat junk food and can't hold a job like many people think. Personally I believe that drinking is much worse for you and for society. I am not much of a drinker myself anymore (After dealing with a drinking problem) and if I do, it's usually one, maybe two beer tops.

I know I'm OK, and I know what I am capable of. If I want to give it up, I can (And have in the past) and will... just not right now.

My 2 cents anyway.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

The only thing pot is good for is helping put scum bags like below in jail.

AM 900 - CHMLAM


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> You'll always find stories of the "Pothead that did great in life", just like the "Person smoked tobacco all his life and is 105 years old", and "Alcoholic leads normal life and is 97 years old". There are always exceptions to the rule.
> 
> When you say to your kids that trying marijuana is okay, it won't hurt them, then their chiclet little brains tell them they can try other stuff like crystal meth (can be instantly addictive), extasy (which can kill them with one try), or crack (also instantly addictive).
> 
> Heck, if they want to stay away from the illegal stuff, they could steal an Oxycodone from mom's medicine cabinet (Oxycodone is considered a poor man's heroine).


GT, you are making the assumption that everyone who has used or uses pot is a pothead. You wouldn't say that about alcohol would you?

I admit that there are people who have a psychological addiction to pot (AFAIK, physical addiction to it hasn't been proven). People can get psychologically addicted to lots of things, including internet forums.

When I was young and smoked pot, it was probably as much as I drank beer. Probably too much for my own good, but hey, I was young.  I haven't had a puff of weed in a decade and the amount I drink is pretty small now.

I know lots and lots of people who smoked and still smoke pot who are not potheads. I also know even more people who drink alcohol who are not alcoholics. I wouldn't tell anyone that pot is harmless, but really it is less dangerous than booze by a long shot and I think the same level of caution in its use should be exercised. You know, don't get wasted all the time, and certainly don't drive if you do. There is no reason for it to be demonized and illegal.

Those chiclet brains of children that you refer to will do what they do. Hopefully they are equipped with enough reasoning ability to evaluate risks properly. That's pretty much all you can do and that's probably why most kids turn out just fine.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

*Subject: Group of Marijuana Lobbyists dominating Congressional Softball League*

You are watching Lobbyist Softball Another Funny Video from Fark TV on Super Deluxe


----------



## JAGflyer (Jan 10, 2005)

-Pot is not physically addictive
-Pot does not damage anything
-Pot is impossible to overdose on (you just get REALLY stoned, lol)
-Pot can ruin lives
-Pot can do good
-Pot can do bad

Chose your future wisely and if you do chose to smoke do it responsibly and make sure it does not get in the way of yourself or others.

To SINC, you my friend are just like the rest of the stereotypical public. You think that everything that is illegal is bad, bad, bad. Weed can be very bad but it is the safest "drug" you can take.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

> A compound found in cannabis may stop breast cancer spreading throughout the body, US scientists believe.


BBC NEWS | Health | Cannabis compound 'halts cancer'BBC NEWS | Health | Cannabis compound 'halts cancer'


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

> BBC NEWS | Health | Cannabis compound 'halts cancer'BBC NEWS | Health | Cannabis compound 'halts cancer'


Basically has nothing to do with smoking marijuana as they state in the article that smoking marijuana doesn't give you any significant value of the compound that helps.

Also smoking marijuana is still smoking, and is almost as dangerous as smoking cigarettes. The only reason it isn't as dangerous, is that typically you don't smoke as much marijuana. Of course both smokers and potheads stink to high-heaven so most non-smokers avoid them both.

The originating article on the first page was interesting... it made no comparison between pot-smokers and non-smokers. I wonder why?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> Marijuana Brownies.


Mmmmm, ya hash brownies I'm going to have to go with, more 'chocolateeee', if you know what I mean.  _ And you don't eat as many so they are less fattening so they're healthier. _


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

absolutetotalgeek said:


> Mmmmm, ya hash brownies I'm going to have to go with, more 'chocolateeee', if you know what I mean.  _ And you don't eat as many so they are less fattening so they're healthier. _


Not to mention fiber.............


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Pot replaces poppy in fields of Afghanistan*

Good news?



> he fields of Balkh province in northern Afghanistan are free of opium poppies this year.
> 
> It's a success touted often by Afghan and international officials.
> 
> ...


globeandmail.com: Pot replaces poppy in fields of Afghanistan


----------

