Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #209 - thegamegestapo (04/24/2012) [-]
I would have a great deal more respect for stoners if they dropped the "Cancer-curing, baby rescuing, panda breeding, space exploring, wonder drug" BS

You want to get stoned. Whoop dee- frickin'-doo...
#225 to #209 - brianhenry (04/24/2012) [-]
yes but saying this is the only way to get pussy politicians to grow some balls and get the legalization process of marijuana started. At this point, even though most people seem to know marijuana should be legalized, people are too ball-less to not conform to what the uninformed believe.
User avatar #231 to #225 - thegamegestapo (04/24/2012) [-]
That's a generalisation. There are legitimate reasons that weed is illegal and I'm yet to see anything that shows it to be useful in any circumstance it's not already used in.
#241 to #231 - brianhenry (04/25/2012) [-]
It depends on what you consider to be a legitimate reason to be illegal. If you think the government has the right to make a choice for you that you are not allowed to use something that is proven to not cause any physical addiction (psychological addiction can occur for literally anything), proven to be an extremely small fraction as harmful as alcohol or cigarettes, and with all this in mind, good people who enjoy marijuana are having their lives ruined getting caught with said drug.. then yes, it should be illegal
User avatar #252 to #241 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2012) [-]
People take this "not addictive" thing completely the wrong way. You don't become dependent meaning it's not harmful to stop. It's non-addictive in the same way as tar free cigarettes. The real problem with it is that once heavier users stop responding to the THC they tend to move on to the harder stuff.

Frankly I think it should be illegal along with cheap cigarettes and the pound-a-litre booze.
#260 to #252 - brianhenry (04/25/2012) [-]
This is incorrect, heavy users only stop responding to the THC as much temporarily, similar to the the tolerance level you build up if you drink alcohol frequently; If you stop smoking for 2-4 weeks even the heaviest smokers tolerance goes down to level 1. Saying that "people move on to harder stuff after THC" is like saying that someone who ride bikes competitively are destined to move on to more dangerous activities that heighten the thrill. Most people who smoke weed are very content with the feeling it gives them and don't feel the need to look any further for a more intense feeling. And tar is not what causes the addiction in cigarettes, nicotine does, which is still very much an ingredient in tar-free cigarettes.
User avatar #262 to #260 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2012) [-]
Your facts are disputed. An NHS survey/study showed that in the UK heavy users of soft drugs such as weed were around 20 times more likely to try a harder drug when tolerance built up. Yes it degrades again after time which is why less frequent users tend not to end up junkies. The point I will make against myself is that a number of these users will be adolescents being stupid and weed is not responsible for that.

Don't get me wrong I do see the other side of the coin I just don't agree.
#263 to #262 - brianhenry (04/25/2012) [-]
Yeah by survey/study you mean survey, and even putting aside the fact that the entire group of subjects in the survey was hand selected to be drug users to begin with to ensure that they were including only marijuana users (This is surveyor bias and voids the study if present due to other variables brought about by not randomly selecting subjects), somebody checking a box that the says they might try heavy drugs is not the same as them actually trying it, or continuing to use them in that matter. And no, the fact that it degrades after time is ot the reason why less users don't move on to harder drugs, the fact that most people aren't complete retards is the reason why people don't move onto harder drugs. You should recognize that the entire argument of something is realllly backed into a corner when you start saying that something should be illegal because you think it might cause some people to do something else unrelated to the thing the argument is based around. Ask yourself this, what probably came first for junkies who choose to get into hard drugs and ruin their lives, horribly disfunctional family problems? Alcohol? or Marijuana. And it is a fact that most people have tried alcohol before marijuana (if they even tried marijuana at all) so why are people saying marijuana is a gateway drug (which is a terrible argument to base anything off of in the first place) when it is proven that alcohol comes first most of the time and disfunctional childhoods are more prevalent in junkies' lives than the inclusion of weed?
User avatar #269 to #263 - thegamegestapo (04/25/2012) [-]
No when I say study/survey I mean study with attached surveys before and after the research. THC does not create a dependency as you said however psychological addiction is far from uncommon. The gateway drug principle aside that is still a problem.

And don't play the "psychological addiction can happen with anything" card because weed isn't like chocolate or whatever. It's a real drug and if you're going to mess around with it then you should have more information than those "Weed = wisdom" leaflets that buthurt stoners hand out at rallies
#273 to #269 - brianhenry (04/26/2012) [-]
(Out of curiosity please tell me the name of the research that was conducted and where i can find the info on it) Yes it actually is uncommon to become psychologically addicted to weed, just like it is uncommon to become psychologically addicted to pulling your hair, eating dirt, and tanning but people actually have these problems. And the point is that people who actually have psychological addictions have them due to their own mental health issues and it is not caused by the things they become addicted to themselves. And saying marijuana is a "real drug" accomplishes nothing, tylenol is a real drug as well. You continue to overlook the obvious facts that prove marijuana itself is harmless and the only negative health effects come from the tar that you inhale in your lungs along with it (which will be present when burning anything); and this problem can be easily avoided by using methods like vaporizing and edibles. And it is pretty hypocritical when you falsely accuse me of getting my information from "Weed = Wisdom" leaflets from rallies that i have never been to when it seems pretty obvious that you get all of your information about weed from your parents "expertise" about the subject when you were little and biased studies when you got older. Saying something should be illegal instead of granting people their human right to choose whether or not they want to smoke is such a control-freak mindset, especially when you are so ill-informed about the subject.
User avatar #275 to #273 - thegamegestapo (04/26/2012) [-]
Try the NHS website. I apologise but I only saw the printouts of that particular study.

I did not intend to imply that you didn't understand it yourself as you have clearly shown to know enough to produce a solid argument. I was simply stating that many people who take up weed are unaware of the potential health risks associated. As a result I won't take offence at the parents remark. My bias (and I'll admit to having one) comes from the twenty something school mates I had who were doing well enough in school until one of them showed up with a bag of weed. Most of them are now skipping school and effectively all of them are failing.

I don't think it's a coincidence.

My quarrel isn't with weed specifically. If an adult wants to get high on weekends because he has nothing better to do then on his head be it but it bugs me to see kids throwing away their future because the took up a drug habit when they didn't know better.

#277 to #275 - brianhenry (04/27/2012) [-]
If you had any first-hand experience with weed you would know it debilitates nothing socially or academically at all. Nobody ever knows when i am high when i am high and this is not because people tell me this to avoid awkwardness. I have tested it with close family and friends who have been around this thing and wouldn't care if i did by asking them on a later date if they knew. When you see somebody acting overly high, it is the same reason why people will act drunk when unknowingly drinking non-alcoholic beverages. The effects of weed are EXTREMELY slight compared to what people make of it. The reason why your "students" started skipping school and failing is because they are dumbass delinquents, not because pot became available. I went to a high school with 2500 kids, maybe 10% of them smoked weed semi-regularly or regularly, most were actually great students and one ended up being the valedictorian, and a handful of them were terrible students. Either one of these results did not stem from smoking, it was due to their homelife and/or will to succeed. It so makes sense that you are a teacher (if you are) because you seem to fall under that group of people who search for things to blame for unsuccessfulness of kids when there is never one specific thing that causes it. It is not marijuana's fault that these kids did not succeed, it is the kids' fault when they decided to get high instead of go to school or do homework; you need accept the fact that there is not a specific reason to every kid's failure, some are just unwilling to do well in school. You as a teacher should know more than anybody that there will always be that group of kids who just stops caring about school, no matter what the circumstance.

And by the way, most of the information, if not all of it, on cannabis coming from this website has been proven wrong many times afold and is dangerously out of date. It even states that it causes physical withdrawell, which is flat out wrong.
User avatar #280 to #277 - thegamegestapo (04/28/2012) [-]
Fellow student actually but I'm rather flattered.

They didn't turn into "dumbass delinquents" until they got into weed. And more importantly I know what they were doing on their days off.

Ever see someone stoned try to answer a question in class? Trust me you can tell.

Like I said, I won't preach to an adult about weed because that's their call regardless of my opinion but at least agree that it should stay out of schools. At the very least it stinks. At the very worst it screws up your life (statistics do show that most junkies, at least in the UK, began with cannabis.

In the UK it would be a criminal offence for the NHS to post false or deliberately misleading information.



#281 to #280 - brianhenry (04/28/2012) [-]
Yes but which causes the other? I'd say making the choice to get high during your high school classes makes you a dumbass delinquent, not the thing you use to get high.Think back to when you were that age, you probably knew your priorities and did what you needed to do before you did what you wanted to do. Kids aren't clueless to what they choose to do, most adults just perceive it that way and look for something to blame. Using this as a reason for keeping pot illegal is like saying a man can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it. And to use real life reason against this look at any other country which has legalized marijuana; in almost all countries where marijuana is legal, there is less reported teen use than where it is not legal. This may stem from it being harder to obtain legally or just from it being less glorified but if this is what you are worried about, what does it matter why, based on other countries as an example, legalizing marijuana would most likely reduce teen use anyway.
User avatar #282 to #281 - thegamegestapo (04/28/2012) [-]
I didn't mean weed should be legalised for adults just that I wouldn't try to convince them otherwise. Ironically my class preferred when they were out of their face because when they didn't have their daily fix they were incessantly moody (as a result of spending hours clean). Admittedly it also occurred in the smoker population of our school I don't think that should be ignored

It occurs to me that neither of us is likely to give any ground here. You clearly believe that it's an individuals choice to make their own way while I believe in a more regulated society. Shall we agree to disagree?

#284 to #282 - brianhenry (04/28/2012) [-]
I didnt think you meant that, i don't believe you read my last response close enough so please read again, but yeah sure, even though it bothers me that you don't see the other side clearer at all
User avatar #285 to #284 - thegamegestapo (04/28/2012) [-]
That was me saying what I actually did believe. I do understand what you're saying but I personally think we should be banning more things not less. Was interesting to speak to you though.
#286 to #285 - brianhenry (04/28/2012) [-]
appreciate that, but please take this argument much more seriously. There aren't many examples over the course of history where banning more things as opposed to less ended up being a good thing, and i'm glad you said that because even though i do enjoy weed that is not why i become offended at the continuation of its criminalization, it is the fact that the government takes away our ability to decide for ourselves.

Sorry for another long response, but yeah, agree to disagree i guess
#278 to #277 - brianhenry (04/27/2012) [-]
when i say "this website" i mean the NHS website you pointed me to, its actually comical at some points at what it is saying
#279 to #278 - brianhenry (04/27/2012) [-]
And most of the info is in the article is admitted to come from no source or study whatsoever. It says the word "possibly" in about every other statement, showing that they are just repeating info that they heard somewhere else that hasn't been proven and has probably been disproven
#261 to #260 - brianhenry (04/25/2012) [-]
and no, its non-addictive in the meaning that it is literally non-addictive. Marijuana alone is unable to cause physical addiction. Physical addiction meaning your body itself starts feeling a need for the drug. The fact that it isn't physically addictive is partly proven through the knowledge that it doesn't cause a hangover which is actually your body going through withdrawal (This is why your hangover will actually disappear if you start drinking again while you have one), and this feeling of a "hangover" is supposedly most intense in the most addictive drugs like heroin and crystal meth.
User avatar #283 to #272 - thegamegestapo (04/28/2012) [-]
dibs not being the ginger
 Friends (0)