Teh Pot

[Jon]

Well what do you think about legalization of recreational marijuana?

I used to be against, then for it, then against it now I'm kind of slightly leaning for it.

Being an ex-user I can tell you that it did mess with my mind but I was into other drugs too so I'm not sure you can blame it all on "teh pot".

I started reshaping what I think of the drug lately because I've been seeing a lot of people trying to legalize it. Not just stoners, but educated people, scientists even.


I read a few articles in the USA Today a month or so ago totally supporting the fact that it is less dangerous than alcohol. I also read about the one state that actually legalized it but it's still illegal under federal law (however the article said local police no longer enforce less than an ounce posession).

So do you think it should be legal?

When do you think it will be?


I've been tempted to smoke again. I thought I'd get away from it in college, but it seems to be as popular as alcohol. People smoke and come to class and I smell it often.

I kind of hope it becomes legal in the next 15 years, but I think there are still too many strong religious groups that will oppose it.

[GangstaGRILLZ]

Personally, I don't really care if it is legal or not. Most people round here are pretty easy going. Theres worse things you could be doing than smoking a joint downtown.

I smoke a lot of weed, have for years. I don't really know how excited I am to have it controlled by the government. Hmm...

[TheTaxidermist]

I think people should be allowed to, but if you do it, please avoid getting behind the wheel of an automobile. Any impairment is bad impairment. Also, if you have children, please don't smoke around them.

[DarkFlood]

Legalize it so that the jails are less cramped. I could personally care less whether or not you want to kill yourself, even if it is less harmful than alcohol. It was only illegal in the states because of racism toward the mexicans and competition with the tree growers/cotton growers. (for clothes and paper) Other countries followed suit because of the US bullying them.

[Ares]

I personally think both tobacco and pot should be outlawed, but that's just me...

[rtanger]

It should have the same restrictions as alcohol.
I'm sure at least some of you heard about Amendment 44, Colorado's amendment this year that would have legalized posession of up to an ounce of pot for anyone 21 years of age or older.

That's all it would have changed. It would have been illegal to smoke in public thanks to parphernelia and public consumption laws, but a person would have been safe to smoke in their own homes (like a good, responsible adult does anyways) without the fear that they might have the cops called on them by a neighbor.

It was looking very good, they collected over 3 times the necessary signatures to get it on the ballot, and had strong support.

But, some wacky politicians came up with some BS language that was written into the Blue Book description of the amendment. Somehow, they decided it would be legal to transfer up to an ounce of pot to a MINOR 15 years and older!

Of course, there was uproar, but the news seemed to sashay gently around the story, and support plummeted in light of this...made up...language. The system almost worked. But even when it almost does, there's screwy ploiticians to put their spin on the matter.

The law was shot down, 60%-40

Granted, CO has some of the most lax laws this side of CA. Possesion of an ounce or less without intent to distribute is a small misdemeanor fine.

/end story

Anyways, I feel it is our perogative as humans to be allowed to find enjoyment in anything, even if it's bad for our health, as long as we aren't hurting anyone else in the process.

I'm an admitted smoker, and have been for a while now. What I do for entertainment in the privacy of my home, or out in the middle of nowhere is my business, as long as I'm not infringing on anyone else's rights.

Arguments about safety to the person and health risks are moot in my book. Much more dangerous substances are legal, and have greater public acceptance despite the fact that they are debateably more harmful to a person and society. A grown adult accepts the risks that come with certain choices. If I want to accept those risks and take those chances with my own mind and body, I should be allowed to.

I reiterate my main point-
A grown adult should be able to de whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect someone else negatively and doesn't infringe on their capability to contribute to society. My body is my body, I should have the right to decide what I do or do not do to it.

And besides, I do regardless of the law.
Guess I'm an outlaw. Like Jesse James himself.

[Collision]

Content deleted: Doesn't progress the thread - Kester

[Kester]

I'll be keeping a close eye on this. While I'm happy for it to continue, this isn't a place to tell drug stories, but a place to debate the question in hand. So far everything here is fair game.

[Mad Scientist]

I would probably classify myself as a classical libertarianism, in that the system of polotical thinking that i find most concurant with my own is the form of libertarianism set out by the victorian philosopher Jonh Stuart Mill. Namely:

Over a man's own mind body and spirit, the man alone reigns sovreign.

In otherwords, people should be alowed to do wat they want to themselves without interferance. However, there is a qualification to this, known as the "Harm Principle":

A person should be free to carry out any action they wish without interferance by the authorities, in all circumstances, WITH THE SINGLE AND SOLE EXCEPTION, of when their actions would cause harm to others. In this case, and ONLY in this case is interferance justified.

Therefore, if a person can smoke cannabis, without causing others to inhale their smoke, has no dependants or relativs that would be hurt by having to support the person if they contracted lung cancer or a mental illness, and would not consume medical reasources if they became ill as a result of the choice that they made, then i would have no problem with people smoking pot. However, as such a scenario is well nigh impossible, i'm afraid i would have to side with keeping it prohibited.

I would apply the same logic towards tobacco, in that i believe it should be gently made less and less socialy acceptable untill it can be illegalised (as indeed it looks as though it may happen in the long run in Britian).

Indeed, i would also apply this thinking to alcohol as well, however, if one drinks in moderation, it is perfectly possible to enjoy a drink or two (or more depending on ones constitution) without harming others. Therefore there is nor reason to outlaw alcohol.

[P-Thunder.]

Ive smoked the stuff before, but it messes with my head slightly, sends me funny for days afterward. Feeling depressed etc. Drugs have a diffrent effect on diffrent people. Therefor i agree that it should be made legal, but its obviously as the users risk

[Collision]

Content deleted: Doesn't progress the thread - Kester

[GangstaGRILLZ]

I saw a really cool tshirt a few weeks back with a big pot leaf on the front and all is says is: No Victim, No Crime.

[DKR1138]

Weed shouldn't be illegal at all, **** blue label smirnoff causes more damage than smoking a bowl.

[GangstaGRILLZ]

Weed shouldn't be illegal at all, **** blue label smirnoff causes more damage than smoking a bowl.

quoted for truth.
alcohol sucks.

[DKR1138]

Exactly, last time I heard, Weed doesn't kill your liver, rot your brain cells or anything really. It does weaken your senses while high, but for all intensive purposes, id rather hand my keys to a high person than a drunk.

Its completely overrated and badmouthed in the media, if anything they should be lobbying to ban tobacco and alcohol, LEGAL drugs that all have dangerous effects to your physical self. Compared to weed that not only has medicinal purposes for illnesses, but is completely harmless.

Obviously moderation is still a factor, but when isn't moderation a concern with any consumable in human history.

[Raminator]

Compared to weed that not only has medicinal purposes for illnesses, but is completely harmless.Marijuana use has been conclusively linked with the development of various psychoses including schizophrenia. I'd hardly call causative mental illness "harmless".

[DKR1138]

Most of which happens to people who smoke it multiple times a day. Moderation sir.

[Kester]

No it hasn't Ram. There are no conclusive studies that state that. Only ones that suggest it.

I'm much more under the belief that it only causes psychosis in people who would have been prone to them any and that is only if it does have a link.

I can say, me, my fiancée, and almost all of our mates have smoked daily for the last 3 years, some of us longer. None of us have ever experienced anything more than a high. Not once have we or anyone we know experienced episodes of some kind of psychosis.

[DKR1138]

Personally, ive only smoked it once, not something im really dying to do again... but to the point, there are way more legal drugs out there THAT in comparison to weed, are a whole lot worse, physically and mentally. It just seems overkill to have such dramatic laws against it.

[Raminator]

No it hasn't Ram. There are no conclusive studies that state that. Only ones that suggest it.A quick scan of PubMed finds a number of papers (many published within the last few weeks) which provide or cite evidence for a conclusive link between the two.I'm much more under the belief that it only causes psychosis in people who would have been prone to them any and that is only if it does have a link.Of course it does, it's the same with smoking and lung cancer or alcoholism and cirrhosis. That doesn't make it any less of a concern - after all, as of yet we are unable to determine who in the population is innately at risk. We must therefore assume that everyone is.

[Kester]

Or, in my opinion, we could stop living in fear of everything and start enjoying ourselves, as long as we don't directly hurt others and by your arguing we should also ban alcohol (although I agree that is much worse for you than weed).

[Mad Scientist]

And i'l like to point out that inhaling ANY particulate matter significantly increases your
chances of getting lung cancer by a significant margin.

we don't directly hurt others

But thats the thing, it DOES harm people. It harms the families who now have to place their son in full time care because he aquired schizophrenia (this happened to someone i know who smoked a moderate amound of cannabis). It harms the people who cannot be treated for diseases or injuries which they got by total accident, because the money is being spent on weed smokers. It harms the people who put up with second hand smoke from those who are so discourtieous as to smoke in public places.

If you could smoke weed or tobacco without harming other people, then fine, i have no problem. But unlike alcohol, this is not possible to do while other people are around. Therefore, i would not be in favour of legalising weed, and i would be in favour of criminalising tobacco, simply because they harm people who want nothing to do with them.

[Kester]

Should we therefore ban cars with all the toxins they pump into the air we breathe?

[Mad Scientist]

We should certainly ban internal combustion engines once a viable alternative is found.

And thats besides the point. Its very hard to remain employed in lots of places in this country without being able to drive. If you removed cars from our economy, then the effects would be disasterous. The same cannot be said with pot.

[P-Thunder.]

If they lungcaner etc is a problem,you can digest it. AKA "Space cakes". I've not had them before, becuase cooking them stinks the place out.

[Kester]

Or vapourisers.

[P-Thunder.]

Tell a lie, I once put rocky on spaggeti bolognese. Didnt realy feel much, not as much as if you smoke it. Never had it in cakes though. Iam not much of a green smoker. Like i said in a previous post. It dosnt realy agree with me. Sends me abit loopy loo. Evreyone reacts diffrent to diffrent drugs.

[Jon]

Bob Marley didn't get schizophrenia.
Snoop Dogg isn't Schizophrenic.

Those are / were like the two biggest smokers in the world.

Marijuana does not cause schizophrenia, just people who started smoking who already had it and then it came out and people blamed it on the pot just to help ruin it's image.

Don't believe everything your told.

[Mad Scientist]

Oh i don't. But you can't really generalise individual instances into trends. What i WOULD believe is carefully correlated and corroborated scientific evidens from a variety of source when there is no vested intrest on either side.

Such sources say that there is a strong link between cannabis smoking and mental health. INdeed the person i mentioned was not loopy beforehand. They could even be pretty sharp sometimes. Nowadays he spends most of his time arguing with himself. Did cannabis do this? One can never know for sure, but given how the evidense is stacking up, it looks like the most likly cause.

[GangstaGRILLZ]

the only downside i've found is that if something is already bothering me when i smoke, i tend to dwell on that problem more than i should. i definitely get paranoid if presented with a challenging situation or any sort of confilct and it definitely makes me lazy.

all of which, i should mention, are sacrifices i'm willing to make. i find smoking to be relaxing (most of the time) and very social (99% of my friends smoke as well).

i can see how it might cause problems for someone who is already likely, or already has any sort of mental disorder... er, whatever you want to call it. not sure of the proper term.

i support anyone's decision to smoke/not smoke and try my best not to pressure or influence someone elses decision.

[Tesseract]

I still don't know why we can't legalize it and control it like alcohol. That way it can be a big support to economy. People are still buying it anyways. It may aswell support the economy like alcohol, or tobacco. Neither may be good for us per-se but it could at least help the economy since it's happening anyhow...Why not?

[P-Thunder.]

I do know a lad who smokes it alot and is highly parnoid now, hes slit up with his girlfreind and has moved to canda, no one knows why. Ofcourse it could not be weed that sent him this way. But it looks like its the cuase.

[bluseychris]

Well what do you think about legalization of recreational marijuana?

I used to be against, then for it, then against it now I'm kind of slightly leaning for it.

Being an ex-user I can tell you that it did mess with my mind but I was into other drugs too so I'm not sure you can blame it all on "teh pot".

I started reshaping what I think of the drug lately because I've been seeing a lot of people trying to legalize it. Not just stoners, but educated people, scientists even.


I read a few articles in the USA Today a month or so ago totally supporting the fact that it is less dangerous than alcohol. I also read about the one state that actually legalized it but it's still illegal under federal law (however the article said local police no longer enforce less than an ounce posession).

So do you think it should be legal?

When do you think it will be?


I've been tempted to smoke again. I thought I'd get away from it in college, but it seems to be as popular as alcohol. People smoke and come to class and I smell it often.

I kind of hope it becomes legal in the next 15 years, but I think there are still too many strong religious groups that will oppose it.

Having been strung out on it for a good year solid i can happily say I wouldn't smoke it like I smoke cigarettes or drink (I hardly drink). Now and again is ok, but it trashed my mental state. I can think of worse things they could but overall legalisation and control is good, otherwise you just drive it underground and for it's effect it's not worth outlawing. I think if they do it, they should get the age limit to 18 and above and increase the smoking age to the same. Plus the government can tax it and nab more of our cash.

But thats the thing, it DOES harm people. It harms the families who now have to place their son in full time care because he aquired schizophrenia (this happened to someone i know who smoked a moderate amound of cannabis). It harms the people who cannot be treated for diseases or injuries which they got by total accident, because the money is being spent on weed smokers. It harms the people who put up with second hand smoke from those who are so discourtieous as to smoke in public places.

If you could smoke weed or tobacco without harming other people, then fine, i have no problem. But unlike alcohol, this is not possible to do while other people are around. Therefore, i would not be in favour of legalising weed, and i would be in favour of criminalising tobacco, simply because they harm people who want nothing to do with them.

Same with alcohol though. Actually I'd say that alcohol is worse. Weed can send you paranoid. Alcohol...go up broad street on a saturday night and watch the punch ups there folks.

Exactly, last time I heard, Weed doesn't kill your liver, rot your brain cells or anything really. It does weaken your senses while high, but for all intensive purposes, id rather hand my keys to a high person than a drunk.

Its completely overrated and badmouthed in the media, if anything they should be lobbying to ban tobacco and alcohol, LEGAL drugs that all have dangerous effects to your physical self. Compared to weed that not only has medicinal purposes for illnesses, but is completely harmless.

Obviously moderation is still a factor, but when isn't moderation a concern with any consumable in human history.

I'd generally agree with what you said but it does alter your brain. My concentration and memory were better by far before I was smoking. Admittedly I was taking way too much, but then people drink too much and start fights, puke everywhere etc. When your stoned you're too f****d to care, let alone do much. We used to stager into asda and buy stuff for munchies cus our front door was right next to it.

Actually I really want some toffee Ice-cream right now.

[P-Thunder.]

Alot of disscusion that alcohol is worse here, which in some cases it can be. I mean when i used to get stoned i would chil at home watch some films order a takeaway, eat then sleep. Now when i get drunk(often) i dont cuase trouble but iam a loud mouth. For instance il walk home singing realy loud, or il play childish games like "Tig" with my friends or "Knock a door run". Although this is harmless, its anoying. People dont like getting up at 4am to answer the door to see me running down the street giggling.


So the question is which is worse?

I'd hardly say that either is a menace to soicity. Not like the smack heads that roam around robbing there own Grandmothers/Mothers for money for the next fix.

[Iron_man]

I used to smoke pot...then I stopped...and...now I don't...because I stopped... And I don't smoke it anymore...at all...

[TheTaxidermist]

So the question is which is worse?


When it comes to being behind a wheel, I'd rather you be high. So I'm gonna say drinking heavily can be worse. You can do a lot worse things when your drunk than when you're high.

[DKR1138]

I'd generally agree with what you said but it does alter your brain.

I was more in general talking about phycosis, and long term after effects... friends of mine have been doing it for years and there aware, really creative in their spare time and in all, well rounded people. So I really have a hard time listening to people when they say it has a dramatic after effect....

Im well aware it alters your brain waves when your stoned, but that effect does go away some hours later, as alcohol.

[Mad Scientist]

The evidense suggests that even a relativly small amount of cannabis dramatically increases one's chances of developing mental health problems. Of course, a greater dosage increases it even higher.

However, a small amount of alcohol has no long term effects. Indeed, i nmoderation, alcohol actually has beneficial health effects and is good for cardiovascular systems. The point i am trying to make is that even if you only smoke in moderation, harm is still being done. However a person can drink in moderation, and harm nobody.

[rtanger]

You require a source immediately, Mad Scientist. YOu are making bold claims.

This whole mental health problem thing that keeps cropping up feels like a causation without correlation fallacy. I want some proof, and not just an article that says there was a study, I want the study. Now.

As for the 'beneficial alcohol' claim, you failed to mention that this true for red wine, and red wine only, and only in daily doses of 1 fl. oz.

[tigger]

pot sucks. so what if it calms you down? so does a cup of tea ffs.

[marrow]

im in favour of allowing people to get stoned in their own homes.
but people who let things get out of hand, and turn to crime to fund a drug habit should get seriously punished in the courts.

[Flarty]

I think the person is educated enough, and if were to legalize it should put more education out there about it.

Pot can cause mental health problems, i felt i was starting to exhibit some effects, so i quit nearly 2 years ago after smoking almost every day for 4 years from the age of 14. But this has only recently been addressed as an issue and is under current investigation and scrutiny. Its also stated that cannabis psychosis is different from one to another, as i smoked a lot of weed and began to feel negative effects, i know people who smoke it all day, everyday and show no signs of serious mental damage (sure they act like your typical stoner, but like i said they smoke it all day, everyday).

And as for the issue of having drug addicts committing crime to feed their addiction, we have them with alcoholics, its just not as publicised as much, because what goverment would want to publically announce that a drug they deem safe and legitimate and contributes to their yearly tax intake is really not as socially acceptable as you may think,

But my final view point is with alcohol being legal, and probably worse than some illegal drugs out there, i think this double standard is a load of bull crap,

But to be honest it doesn't even matter if the drug is legalized or not, people will still get hold of it if they want it, and as for being in fear of intoxicated people in public, trust me when i say they are already out there.


However, a small amount of alcohol has no long term effects. Indeed, i nmoderation, alcohol actually has beneficial health effects and is good for cardiovascular systems. The point i am trying to make is that even if you only smoke in moderation, harm is still being done. However a person can drink in moderation, and harm nobody.

You can all ways eat cannabis, works better when cooked with butter, as the "thc" clings to the cholesterol entering your body quicker. There's also several effects of cannabis that could also be considered beneficial.

I think thats a fair rant by the urban chemist of the forums :P

[lastdinosaur]

In my own personal life, during childhood, I've had FAR more encounters with angry drunks going into insane rages than psychotic potheads attacking me. In fact, I've never encountered a pothead that was threatening in any way, or doing anything that could harm me. On the other hand, I've been in MANY fights, seen accidents, and just piles of retarded things happen to drunk people.

Those are just my own personal experiences, but something else needs to be understood here. Everything that is harmful in some way is not regulated, nor should it be. I saw a scary movie as a child and it really scarred me badly, I lived up until my teenage years experiencing a sort of terror from that movie, but nobody would ever use that as the basis for banning scary movies. Marijuana may exacerbate schizophrenic tendencies in some, but cigarettes are basically low-quality speed that you suck through a fiberglass tube. Compare the incidences of people becoming schizophrenic from smoking weed with those whose lives and family's lives are ruined by alcoholism. Believe it or not, I've had people very close to me experience both, but the casualties of alcohol far outnumber the casualties of pot. Nobody is in favor of banning alcohol though, prohibition failed horribly, just like the war on drugs, prohibition's retarded grandson, is in the process of doing.

[GangstaGRILLZ]

lastdinosaur - you're from tokyo? what are the laws regarding marijuana use over there? would you ever see someone smoking weed in public?

[lastdinosaur]

A lot fewer people smoke weed in Japan. The drugs of choice in Japan tend to be stimulants, due to pressure to stay awake and work harder. You can get weed here, but the quality is inconsistent and it tends to be very expensive. The fact that it is illegal in Japan seems to deter far more people here than it does in the US.

[zim]

I say all things are good in moderation. Except death. Unless you want death.

[Flarty]

A lot fewer people smoke weed in Japan. The drugs of choice in Japan tend to be stimulants, due to pressure to stay awake and work harder. You can get weed here, but the quality is inconsistent and it tends to be very expensive. The fact that it is illegal in Japan seems to deter far more people here than it does in the US.

Yeah good thing about Japan it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, I'd love to know what you guys are doing right.

P.S stimulants all the way :P

[TheTaxidermist]

Yeah good thing about Japan it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, I'd love to know what you guys are doing right.


The mindset of the peoples in Japan are completely different than that of the US or of the UK. Just look at the streets, there's no littering! That alone should tell you something, that the Japanese people hold laws and decency in high regard.

[Flarty]

that doesn't say what their society is doing right, you've just stated the obvious

[rtanger]

Well, by stating the obvious, he answered your question.

It's a difference in cultural ideals, as far as I understand it. I don't really know how it could be explained better than that, and I wouldn't want to make an incorrect statement in the process of doing so.

This debate isn't about what makes Japan behave better than the US, so it really doesn't beg further discussion in the scope of this thread anyways.

[RabidMonkey]

I still don't know why we can't legalize it and control it like alcohol. That way it can be a big support to economy. People are still buying it anyways. It may aswell support the economy like alcohol, or tobacco. Neither may be good for us per-se but it could at least help the economy since it's happening anyhow...Why not?

Because the government is pouring millions of dollars into the 'war to combat drugs' and they'd rather stay the course than take a sensible option out. Rather than drive ourselves further into deficit by the billions we could be making profits while also making recreational drugs safer and regulated; as well as saving money by not paying for thousands of 'criminals' in jail for small posession offenses (or even offenses for dealing - if they were legal, the whole black market system and experience of drug sales and use would be gone.) I pay hefty taxes on my cigarettes and liquor already, why not tax another popular substance instead of pouring money into a poor policy to combat the use of such drugs?

The feds are trying to prove a point (the point being, 'if you use drugs we'll catch you and make you go to jail because it's illegal because we say so') and failing. The government just wants to keep sending their message. I don't think it's in their jurisdiction really to be entirely honest. It should be up to me what I consume, not the government, as long as I don't endanger anyone else. One of the most common arguments I hear about why it shouldn't be legalized is that "when you drive under the influence of pot blah blah blah" - Yes, and if I were to drive under the influence of alcohol I would also risk putting people in danger, and that is why it is illegal to drive drunk. It should obviously be the same for such drugs were they made legal. (Or people should just watch what the **** they're doing on the road, either way.)

The evidense suggests that even a relativly small amount of cannabis dramatically increases one's chances of developing mental health problems. Of course, a greater dosage increases it even higher.

However, a small amount of alcohol has no long term effects. Indeed, i nmoderation, alcohol actually has beneficial health effects and is good for cardiovascular systems. The point i am trying to make is that even if you only smoke in moderation, harm is still being done. However a person can drink in moderation, and harm nobody.

Agreed, please cite your sources for such statements. Any studies on the long-term effects on mental health that you can pull up? Also, from what I've heard a glass of red wine per day or so is decent for you due to some of the ingredients in such liquors (perhaps as well as beer) - Hard alcohol is pretty bad for you (but is enjoyable in moderation, yes.)

[zim]

My uncle was a huge pot head in the 60s and 70's and now hes suffering the long term mental health effects of it. I thought it was widley excepted that cannibis can lead to mental heath prolems.

[Tesseract]

Are you sure it was the weed that caused it? or that if it was it simply didn't aggravate a pre existing sensitivity to it?

@rabid: I can see exactly your point. The argument for the safety of other can't be valid because substances with such effects are already available legally. Booze is still around, whippits are still in use, and opiates are open to any one with a medical pad. But beer, cool whip cans and tylonol 3 are still around anyhow...it's an argument with no rational basis at all.

[Kester]

I have to agree with Tess here, Zim. How can you say for certain it was the weed that gave him his mental health problems?

Until I see a totally independent study I'm not going to buy into these claims.

[Ares]

^Totaly independent studies don't exist Kester, there's always going to be bias towards some side. Odds are very high that if the study is being done, the objective is going to be the prove a point by opinionated people.

That being said, bias is unavoidable.

I digress though, I don't think anybody's yet mentioned the fact that no matter what pot does to your brain, you've still got to smoke it. Need I mention the plethora of studies that's proven how much smoking screws up your respratory system?

[Flarty]

NO, I HAVE ALREADY SAID YOU CAN EAT IT,

here's how:
grind up the weed and melt some butter in a pan, add the weed let simmer for a good few minutes, let it dry, use butter in cake mix or on sandwiches or how ever you see fit. Await about 30 minutes for effects, its also stronger when cooked with.

you can also use the leaves off the plant to make flour, which to my surprise is just as strong as the previous method i just mentioned (seeing it does **** all when smoking leaves).

You can also get some resin and heat it up on a spoon of water till it breaks down and dissolves (not at all dissimilar to cooking up a shot of smack, but you use a cigarette filter to filter out impurity's such as brick dust in smack), then mix it into a tea or coffee and again await the effects.

Pointless trivia:
Did you know smack (heroin) is actually white, the colour of it being brown these days is due to the use of cutting it with brick dust, this clogs up the users vain's and arteries when injecting and cause's loss of limbs, hence a cigarette filter being used when cooking up a shot for injection.

another educational post by the urban chemist

[rtanger]

You absolutely do not have to smoke the crude plant material.
It is, however, the easiest method of administration, and by far the cheapest.

Vaporization ensures that only the active alkaloids of Cannabis are evaporated and passed into the lung cavity without burning the crude matter, where absorbtion rates of the vaporized materials approach 95%. It's a very cost-effective, and almost completely healthy method of administration. The near-complete absorption of active alkaloids ensures that there's no free material to interfere with lung funtion. As THC vaporizes at a very low temperature, thermal damage to the inside of the lung is almost nil. You can vaporize THC with a 40-watt light bulb or indeed a household hair dryer. It can be a hassle to find an efficient means to collect the vaporized material, however.
An efficient consumer vaporization system can run hundreds of dollars. A pipe can be gotten for next-to-nothing.

There's also oral ingestion either through a fatty material such as butter used to absorb the lipid-soluble chemicals, though absorbtion rates are far lower requiring a greater ingestion of material. Is not cost-effective, and the method seems to change the neurological function of the chemical.

It does have the fact that it's a bronchio/vasodialator working for it, as opposed to the bronchio/vasoconstriction function of nicotine. By opening the bronchial passages, it allows for a great amount of the crude plant residues to be expelled and even works in clearing bronchial passages of residues from, say, cigarette smoke.
A common argument is that Cannabis smoke is more dangerous than tobacco smoke, but this is not strictly true. Not only are inhalation amounts smaller than tobacco smoke, but a very small amount of smoke need be passed into the lungs and only in small amounts to absorb a large amount of active alkaloids into the lung. (You can, indeed, 'get off' without the cough. It's preferable, even.) This is in opposition to cigarette smoke which is taken in more rapidly, in larger quantities, and far more regularly over the course of the day.

It's not healthy to smoke anything, obviously, but it's far better than tobacco smoke. Secondhand accounts that I've heard seem to hint that people who smoke pot but not cigs don't notice a severe amount of damage to the respiratory tract in the longer run, and continue to live with a more or less normal respiratory function for many, many years.

Another commons argument is that dealers "lace" or alter the product with any number of agents to boost product weight or to affect the neuroligcal function of the chemical, meaning that a buyer puts his life at risk by buying any number of unknown substances on the material, from PCP to Coke to Opium, to flour, sugar, formaldehyde, etc. This is a bullcrap argument.

While producers of the lowest grade material, ie- schwag or Mexican brickweed do indeed boost the weight of their product and use components to assist in compacting the material so a smaller amount can be sold for more money (I know Coca-Cola syrup is a common agent for this, hence that crappy brown sticky crap you see occasionally), a discerning smoker quickly learns that unadulterated material is widely available, generally more potent, and can tell at a glance that the product is clean and 100% natural.

As for the lacing argument, no dealer in his right mind is going to waste money adulterating pot with more expensive substances just to mess with his buyers. It's illogical. While pot laced with various substances are available, it's extremely rare, and the price is adjusted and the buyer should generally know what he's getting, since he was more than likely looking for it in the first place.

On the whole, it's a moot point.

As for affecting brain function, it obviously varies widely from user to user. I myself have been smoking regularly for over 6 years now. I do not and have not noticed a signifigant change in my cognitive function that's affected me in a negative way. I notice an increased ability to notice and discern patterns in objects that most people overlook, and a higher propensity towards brightly colored objects than your everyday joe, but nothing I would note as an outright negative.
My sister has been smoking regularly for well over 15 years now. To say that she's a successful and productive member of society is almost an understatement. She is a massively successful and productive member of society with no noticeable cognitive impairment. Between her circle of friends and mine, all mostly regular smokers, I haven't noticed a negative change in any of us since I've known the group collectively as a whole. But, with all those 'studies' releaed that say we should all be completely bonkers right now, we all must be just a giant statistical anomaly. Right?

There's a good reason many of smokers are leary of studies. They largely go against everything we as the actual smokers have observed and noted, and until a truly unbiased, unaltered, well-executed study comes along to prove otherwise, we're going to continue to be that way regardless of the latest propaganda release of the global governments.

[Tesseract]

NO, I HAVE ALREADY SAID YOU CAN EAT IT,

here's how:
grind up ...etc.


I'm not sure mods are going to like you giving instructions on making special brownies etc. on these forums Flarty. It is after all frowned upon at the moment. I would ninja edit to avoid a warn (this is done with good will though Flarty)

[Flarty]

There's also oral ingestion either through a fatty material such as butter used to absorb the lipid-soluble chemicals, though absorbtion rates are far lower requiring a greater ingestion of material. Is not cost-effective, and the method seems to change the neurological function of the chemical.



This man has never experimented in the cannabis culinary delights :haha:

I'm not sure mods are going to like you giving instructions on making special brownies etc. on these forums Flarty. It is after all frowned upon at the moment. I would ninja edit to avoid a warn (this is done with good will though Flarty)

To be fair, if people frown upon the use of cannabis then it is nothing more than interesting read,
If people are gonna put the guide to use, they are only going to find instructions how to else where.

I appreciate what your saying and thank you for it. But as i said previously we are all capable of free thought and forming our own opinions, and if i get an infraction issued for what i've said, then so be it.

[Tesseract]

That's true flarty. I just don't know if the mods will see it that way. Just trying to look out for you. ;)

[Flarty]

Cheers, i feel loved :P
can i have your msn addy please ;)

JOKES

[Tesseract]

My MSN is only for work purposes.

I know you kidd though.

[Flarty]

i wasn't kidding, i only said jokes so i didn't seem like a pervert,:cry:

[Tesseract]

Oh well I'm sorry. anyhow back to the topic. Because smoking is only the most popular method of intake, and not the only method. I think that nullifies that argument.

[Flarty]

OK back on topic


There's a good reason many of smokers are leary of studies. They largely go against everything we as the actual smokers have observed and noted, and until a truly unbiased, unaltered, well-executed study comes along to prove otherwise, we're going to continue to be that way regardless of the latest propaganda release of the global governments.

What i seem to notice in most drug user's, is the ability to acknowledge the damage they are doing to themselves by the intake of a substance. I see this most common ally in stoner's (no offence, if you want to do it by all means do it). Every substance has its negative effects, and those effects are more apparent or lees obvious from person to person.

I have not smoked weed in 2 years, so i will use ecstasy as an example seeing it is my favourite drug . I have taken so much E in my time that now all that happens i might come up for about 15 minutes if lucky, but i still notice the negtive effects of after i "buzz" off my E for a few days after, even if it is only a 15 minute buzz.

[rtanger]

You can't compare one drug to another with completely different neuropharmacological function and then relate their propensity to cause negative effects as being similar, and correlate the relationship like that.

IMO the negative effects of Ecstasy are apparent within hours of the drug wearing off, and in some cases can be very negative indeed. Really, that's neither here or there.
Obviously, we can all agree that negative effects are a result of everything we choose to do, and obviously we can all agree they vary from person to person.
But, you simply have to acknowlege that the argument you just presented is flawed.

[Flarty]

It isn't flawed, you just missed the point.

my point is, every drug has negative effects, regardless of what your saying.

[rtanger]

*slams head on desk*

YOU CAN'T DO IT LIKE THAT!

Ecstasy is NOTHING like pot, and to try and draw a correlation between the two is STUPID! God you make some illogical arguments.

Please, quote my post above and politely highlight the part where I missed the point of your ramblings.

[Flarty]

re-read my post, i did not compare the 2 drugs, i said i have not smoked weed in over 2 years, so i will use ecstacy as an example.

In no way did i say ecstacy and weed the same.

In other words you can develop a tolerance and not enjoy it but you will still feel the negative effects.

[Tesseract]

Getting back to the pot debate.

Recently I read the there isn't one death PROVEN to be a direct result of marijuana use. I think that is something few other substances can say.

[Flarty]

well to be fair, cannabis is mostly consumed with tobacco and if some one is dying from lung cancer, how many doctors do you know will go "hey you smoke pot?".

[Fito]

This is a stupid argument. The only reason pot is illegal is because of the already explained Drug Wars, South America scenario.
Laying out in the sun greatly increases your chance of acquiring skin cancer, smoking increases your chances of lung cancer, and alcoholism leads to liver problems. So, why the hell does it matter if I smoke a joint every once in awhile? You know why? Because our government isn't profiting off it.

[Tesseract]

They could though and the question is why don't they?
It's been a big boost to the Canadian Pharmaceutical economy.

[Paul]

Prisons are full of regular people, decent people, just because they were caught with a plant. In moderation, marijuana is not bad for you in any way. The fact of the matter is, the government made it a controlled substance because they cannot make money off of it. Tobacco is WORSE, and it is perfectly legal for anyone 18 or older. Why, because you can sell it. Cigarettes have all sorts of chemicals and foreign substances in them, but marijuana can be used as is. It is a natural thing that grows from the earth, the government should not be able to restrict a natural substance, period. Why isn't alcohol illegal? Almost every month you read about a family killed by a drunk driver. It is absurd that marijuana is illegal, it should be age restricted, but not illegal.

[Jabode]

The reason I have avoided E is because it melts holes in your brain (completely true). I avoid pot because it makes you grow breasts. In my opinion, we should not legalize pot, but make it illegal to drink and smoke. You guys are arguing how it is just as bad, if not slightly better. So why, instead of arguing that pot should be allowed, argue that smoking and drinking should be outlawed?

[rtanger]

Grow breasts?

The whole "Smoke pot and you'll turn into a woman" argument was debunked a long while ago. While it does affect testosterone production, it most certainly does not affect it in a way that a man ceases to be a man. If my sex drive is any indication, I've got enough testosterone to go around.

MARIJUANA HARMS SEXUAL MATURATION AND REPRODUCTION

Marijuana has been said to interfere with the production of hormones associated with reproduction, causing possible infertility among adult users and delayed sexual development among adolescents.

THE FACTS

There is no evidence that marijuana impairs male reproductive functioning.

The Jamaican and Costa Rican field studies detected no differences in hormone levels between marijuana users and non-users.

In epidemiological surveys of marijuana users, no problems with fertility have emerged as important.

In 1974, researchers reported diminished testosterone, reduced sexual function and abnormal sperm cells in males identified as chronic marijuana users. 34 In a laboratory study, the same researchers reported an acute decrease in testosterone, but no chronic effect after nine weeks of smoking; they did not evaluate sperm volume or quality. 35 In other laboratory studies, researchers have been generally unable to replicate these findings, 36 although by administering very high THC doses - up to 20 cigarettes per day for 30 days - one study found a slight decrease in sperm concentrations. 37 In all studies, test results remained within normal ranges and probably would not have affected actual fertility.

Severe adverse consequences have also been produced in male laboratory animals, although only with extremely high daily THC doses. 38

More importantly, in both the human and animal laboratory studies, all observed changes were reversed once THC administration was halted.

The claim that marijuana impairs female reproductive functioning in humans has no support in the scientific literature.

There have been no epidemiological studies indicating diminished fertility in female users of marijuana, and a recent survey found no impact of chronic marijuana use on female sex hormones. 39

Animal studies show hormonal changes and depressed ovulation following extremely high daily doses of THC. As occurs with males, these changes disappear once the experiment is completed. 40 In addition, when THC was administered to female monkeys for an entire year, they developed tolerance to its hormonal effects and normal cycles were reestablished. 41

Almost immediately following publication of the few studies showing a marijuana impact on reproductive hormones, warnings about marijuana's potential impact on adolescent sexual development began to appear.

Other than one case report of a 16-year old marijuana smoker who had failed to progress to puberty, 42 there has been nothing to indicate that such a potential exists. In whatever other ways one might consider marijuana to be bad for adolescents, it does not retard their sexual development.

Footnote Reference (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth_notes.shtml)

[Flarty]

The reason I have avoided E is because it melts holes in your brain (completely true)..
Erm no it isn't, who told you that? was it the American government? did you know they published a report saying MDMA could give you parkinsons, then it was later revealed they used meth amphetamine in the test. Also the most widely accepted report on ecstacy is a German report which say's that abuse of ecstacy cause's on average, no more than a 5% loss of seratosin levels in the brain which you can easily recover from in days with some Marmite on toast :P
But yes every independent report I've read all agree that more research is needed.

So why, instead of arguing that pot should be allowed, argue that smoking and drinking should be outlawed?

Because that would just be really boring now wouldn't it :P
i enjoy my drink and drugs and damn anyone who try's to take that away from me O_O

[rtanger]

Actually, Parkinson's has a much different connection to that-

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i32/8332mdma.html
More testing is needed, but it's an interesting article.

The brain anomaly most incorrectly associated with Ecstasy is that of Olney's Lesions, a supposed formation lesions (sometimes called "holes") in the brain caused by the presence of free radicals from NMDA receptor antagonists in those areas. This not very well understood condition seems to be more connected to the effects of certain popular dissociatve substances, not ecstasy.

An unocmmon condition that has the potential to be fatal and has been conclusively linked to Ecstasy and Ecstasy potentiator abuse, is that of Serotonin 'Syndrome,'which results from a Serotonin "dump" on the brain, and causes hyperactivation of serotonin receptors, leading to a variety of nasty temporary or permanent side effects ranging from
fever (hyperthermia), hyperreflexia, muscular jerks (myoclonus), tremor, sweating, and diarrhea. The rare toxic forms can have fatal outcomes linked to a severe hyperthermia: coma, blood coagulation, and hepatic damage.

# Hegerl, U. et al (1998) "The serotonin syndrome scale: first results on validity". _Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci._, 248:96-103.
# Kaneda, Y. et al. (2001) "The serotonin syndrome: investigation using the Japanese version of the Serotonin Syndrome Scale". _Psychiatry Res._, 105:135-142.
# Sternbach, H. (1991) "The serotonin syndrome". _Am. J. Psychiatry_, 148:705-713.

Serotonin Syndrome is a potentially fatal condition, with symptoms and complications of euphoria, drowsiness, sustained rapid eye movement, overreaction of the reflexes, rapid muscle contraction and relaxation in the ankle causing abnormal movements of the foot, clumsiness, restlessness, feeling drunk and dizzy, muscle contraction and relaxation in the jaw, sweating, intoxication, muscle twitching, rigidity, high body temperature, frequent mental status changes (including confusion and hypomania - a "happy drunk" state), shivering, diarrhea, loss of consciousness and death. (The Serotonin Syndrome, AM J PSYCHIATRY, June 1991, from http://members.aol.com/atracyphd/syndrome.htm).

Far from safe, especially if abused under the false pretenses of it being "safe."

Methamphetamine rots your body as well as your soul. I'll never touch it. It's one substance that could stand to be erased from the face of the Earth.
Just some stuff I couldn't let go unstated.
But really, we're here to talk about teh Pot, folks. Lets try to stay on topic?

[Flarty]

nice article about the parkinsons lol, as for the meth amphetamine its only just recently hit the u.k shores, i think it wont take off over here, we may be the biggest drug user's in Europe but that's only as far as recreational drugs go, not what i call "lifestyle" drugs. As for ganja, I'd agree with it if there wasnt so much cross breeding of different strains to produce stronger strains going on, it's been said that weed has increased by about 70% in thc levels since the 60's

As for the Serotonin 'Syndrome, thats what us user's refer to as the buzz :P yes there can some unwanted side effects, (but only in very rare case's) and i watched a documentary recently where they looked at the estimated ectsacy sales in new york over a 3 year period, and narrowed down how many deaths there was where ecstacy was mainly responsible, guess how many ppl died out of the potentially million users in the city.

[rtanger]

No, they are not the same.
These are conditions that can persist for days to even weeks after the recreational effects of the drug have waned.
A large percentage of people are also susceptible to the effects of prolonged serotonin depletion, a condition that begins to take effect immediately after the plateau is reached and the long slow descent to normalcy begins, and can worsen if steps to reboost serotonin are avoided and ecstasy use is continued without ample downtime. If you knew even half as much as you claim to, you would know this.

Go read (http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_neurotoxicity1.shtml)

[Flarty]

hmmm really? or did you just read that some where?, as your reffering to is too much seratosin in the body, when a come down is usual to the lack of needed seratosin in the body. as for a come down lasting a week did you read a report where they tested it on chimps or was a report concerning barely noticable levels? I've never had a come down last more than 2 days and that depends on how hard i partied

[rtanger]

It's funny how much you complain about everyone spouting unsubtsantiated opinion and a lack of facts, yet that's all I ever see from you.

I'm playing hardball now, Fido. Bring your A-Game and let's see some proof that your experience equates to the population as a whole, let's see something, ANYTHING, besides your personal opinion, otherwise you're just a tool. I got plenty more sources I can dig up about the neurotoxic effects of ecstasy as they're understood. What do you have? I'm leaving personal anecdote out of this now, have been for a while, I'd recommend the same to you.

[Flarty]

hmmm enough independent reports i've read, independent documentary's, besides that i have myself and many friends with first hand experience, you seem to get really upset and make it personal every time i put you in a hard place.

I mean calling me a tool in what's supposedly an intelligent debate, really makes you look like a child,

And as for your reports claim, have you never heard about conflicting reports? where one report would claim one thing, but yet another report would claim something diffrent? Could be the same case as what we have here, apart from the fact i compare the reports i read with my experience and go with the ones that seem to be correct.

Just because i have a different view points on things, doesnt mean you should spit your dummy out when i express them, which you seem to do when ever i do.

I've only ever criticised you twice as far as i can remember, and both were recent,

1: your ignorance displayed to dikkejos nationality (who can confuse belgium with holland, then continue to say you couldnt care if it was spain?)
2: your claim that its ok to get stoned as long as you use a bong

[rtanger]

hmmm enough independent reports i've read, independent documentary's, besides that i have myself and many friends with first hand experience, you seem to get really upset and make it personal every time i put you in a hard place.

I have plenty of firsthand experience myself, but I don't suffer from personal delusions of invulnerability.

I mean calling me a tool in what's supposedly an intelligent debate, really makes you look like a child, oh well i'm not one to criticise.
Talk the talk, but you need to bring the walk- where is it?I don't see it yet.

And as for your reports claim, have you never heard about conflicting reports? where one report would claim one thing, but yet another report would claim something diffrent?
Now we're talking! Bring these reports, I know they're out there too, I want YOU to bring them!

Could be the same case as what we have here, apart from the fact i compare the reports i read with my experience and go with the ones that seem to be correct.
Again, I don't care what YOU think, bring some proof here.

Just because i have a different view points on things, doesnt mean you should spit your dummy out when i express them, which you seem to do when ever i do.
If you weren't a dumbass you'd figure out we probably have a lot in common. I'm here to argue. Don't bitch when I disagree, BRING SOME REAL ARGUMENT!


I've only ever criticised you twice as far as i can remember, and both were recent,

1: your ignorance displayed to dikkejos nationality
2: your claim that its ok to get stoned as long as you use a bong

1: That has nothing to do with this.
2: You're still a complete ****wad if you think that's what I said. You said- Anything that's smoke damages your lungs
I said- As a parallel to that, anything that smoke passes through is a filter- the parallel is- the any-all relation between the claims. I posted at LEAST 6 times pointing out to you that I NEVER said anything like what you perceived I said, but amazingly enough you apparently fail at paying attention and never even noticed.

You want to talk about "spitting the dummy out," go look in the damn mirror.

Now bring some relevant argument or get bent.

[Flarty]

Dude you need to calm down, i tell you what just to make you happy, your right, everything you say is oh so correct, everyone else is allways wrong, you win all debates with you ability to google and copy and paste.

By the way if your for real when you say you've done drugs then you would be able to debunk most of the stuff you've stated to exaggerated privately funded reports.

P.S heres the most recent documentary i watched and the most fresh in my mind, it basically covers the whole scenario in a nut shell as far as mdma and America is concerned. Also its probably one of the most balanced documentary's i've ever watched.

http://rapidshare.com/files/16377118/MDMA_-_Ecstasy_Rising.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/16382140/MDMA_-_Ecstasy_Rising.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/16381688/MDMA_-_Ecstasy_Rising.part3.rar
password: xioSlayer

[Jabode]

Erm no it isn't, who told you that? was it the American government? did you know they published a report saying MDMA could give you parkinsons, then it was later revealed they used meth amphetamine in the test. Also the most widely accepted report on ecstacy is a German report which say's that abuse of ecstacy cause's on average, no more than a 5% loss of seratosin levels in the brain which you can easily recover from in days with some Marmite on toast :P
But yes every independent report I've read all agree that more research is needed.



Because that would just be really boring now wouldn't it :P
i enjoy my drink and drugs and damn anyone who try's to take that away from me O_O

Uh... Why would it matter if the American government would say that? To prove my point, this information comes from studies done in the uk. Something not sponsered by the use government.
Link
http://www.dpna.org/5ecstacyeffects.htm

This article outlines how that there are very few short term effects of E, but in the long term it can lead to brain damage to parts of the brain that controls memory, to name a part.

Link
http://www.drug-sideeffects.com/ecstasy.htm

This article points out that only a few uses of E can lead to long term effects that can last for up to 6 or 7 years, effecting the seritonin in the users brain.

Second, wouldn't it make smoking and drinking more enjoyable if it wasn't legal?

[Sersoft.corp]

When me and 3 of my friends tried pot 2 years ago, friend#1 (oldest) got high and stayed for a few hours(laugh 4 no reason and stuff), friend#2 was high then got sick and was vomiting mcdonalds for an hour.

me, it didn't work on me at all.. I wasn't high didn't feel any difference and didn't act different. both my friends now occasionally smoke it but I've never tried it since then, same thing about smoking too, it just dosen't work on me:lol: they say it's probably cuz i'm russian:rofl: and, I don't like beer, it tastes weird I just drink when i'm with friends, to get drunk...weird huh|?

[Flarty]

The first article is the exact reason why i asked if you heard it off the american government, the only thing i agree with in this article is no one knows the long term effect of ecstacy. Well i know long time user's and they seem to function ok to me and they are 30-40's and they have never warned me about the dangers of ecstacy or how its screwed them up, only told me stories of wild partys.

The second report say's nothing, in fact its politically correct B.S calling ecstacy users addicts? I've never met a pill head who has ran out and robbed to buy pills, well i have but they are dirty little chavs who would rob to buy a bottle of cider, the only issue it rise's is that of immunity but that isnt an issue because sensible people stop using when the effects are no longer(like myself). if you continue to take the drug in mass amounts when it has no effect then i'm afraid you deserve brain damage, and it only states that there maybe a connection, the article has nothing solid to it really.

as for the the drinking and smoking comment, how would it being illegal make it more fun?

[Jabode]

Grow breasts?

The whole "Smoke pot and you'll turn into a woman" argument was debunked a long while ago. While it does affect testosterone production, it most certainly does not affect it in a way that a man ceases to be a man. If my sex drive is any indication, I've got enough testosterone to go around.



Footnote Reference (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth_notes.shtml)

I think I was not nearly clear enough. First, THC is proven to reduce sex drive when given in certain quantities. That is objective. It does reduce the amount of sexual horomones produced. Second, I meant that they grow breasts due to dietary choices, not the use of pot. Studies show that people who normally used pot are more likely to eat foods with larger amounts of sodium, fat, eat less fruit, etc. Whether this dependent on the use of pot or not, I do not know. Also, I have noticed (this is not a scientific fact, it is merely objective) people who smoke pot really don't do that much. They basically sit around and do nothing. Perhaps it is different for others. In summary, I am infallible and will refute any argue you make, no matter how much evidence you have.:rofl:

[Flarty]

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
quality i like your statement :P

You just forgot to mention the real danger of stoners might waste votes on the green party :P

[rtanger]

Dude you need to calm down, i tell you what just to make you happy, your right, everything you say is oh so correct, everyone else is allways wrong, you win all debates with you ability to google and copy and paste.

My l337 Googling skills aside, I still have yet to see you produce any form of a valid argument. This isn't about who's right and who's wrong, as that is purely (GASP!) debateable! A debate in the debate forum? How novel!

By the way if your for real when you say you've done drugs then you would be able to debunk most of the stuff you've stated to exaggerated privately funded reports.

Why would I not be for real? Do I need to spell this all out to have a valid opinion in your little mind?
Marijuana
Ecstasy
LSD
2C-B
2C-I
2C-E
2C-T7
AMT
5-MeO-AMT
DMT
5 MeO-DMT
DXM
Psilocybin/Psilocin
GHB
Ketamine
Salvia
Kava/Ibogaine/Mimosa
Opium
Various pharms of interest

But what makes me different from you is that I don't automatically assume I understand the risks, a large amount of research went into the various choices I've made over the past few years. Some I regret, some I would kill for to do again. However, each time, I read the various firsthand reports, analyzed the appropriate toxicology research, if any, and generally spent the weeks leading up to my various experiences learning as much about each as I could before taking the leap, so to speak. I'm pretty in tune with the general and universal aspects of various substances with similar properties, enough to call bull**** when I see someone post out and out lies without substantial proof to back their claims. Postive OR negative.

You, Flarty, have yet to produce anything substantial in defense of your claims, save for pointless ad hominem and claims that you know everything better than a source ever would, so your opinion must be your most valid source. So I call Bull****.

You get pissy.
And here we are. Either bring an argument or stop attacking me every time I bring something to the table that you refuse to acknowlege at all.
You complained I wasn't bringing the argument, so I have. Now, argue or shut up, and accept defeat.


P.S heres the most recent documentary i watched and the most fresh in my mind, it basically covers the whole scenario in a nut shell as far as mdma and America is concerned. Also its probably one of the most balanced documentary's i've ever watched.

http://rapidshare.com/files/16377118/MDMA_-_Ecstasy_Rising.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/16382140/MDMA_-_Ecstasy_Rising.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/16381688/MDMA_-_Ecstasy_Rising.part3.rar
password: xioSlayer

I've watched this before, but it's been a little while now. Now I can see it again at least.

[Jabode]

How about he RT? Do I offer interesting arguements, or do I come across as a douchbag? Be truthful.

[El]

lol^

[Flarty]

My l337 Googling skills aside, I still have yet to see you produce any form of a valid argument. This isn't about who's right and who's wrong, as that is purely (GASP!) debateable! A debate in the debate forum? How novel!



Why would I not be for real? Do I need to spell this all out to have a valid opinion in your little mind?
Marijuana
Ecstasy
LSD
2C-B
2C-I
2C-E
2C-T7
AMT
5-MeO-AMT
DMT
5 MeO-DMT
DXM
Psilocybin/Psilocin
GHB
Ketamine
Salvia
Kava/Ibogaine/Mimosa
Opium
Various pharms of interest

But what makes me different from you is that I don't automatically assume I understand the risks, a large amount of research went into the various choices I've made over the past few years. Some I regret, some I would kill for to do again. However, each time, I read the various firsthand reports, analyzed the appropriate toxicology research, if any, and generally spent the weeks leading up to my various experiences learning as much about each as I could before taking the leap, so to speak. I'm pretty in tune with the general and universal aspects of various substances with similar properties, enough to call bull**** when I see someone post out and out lies without substantial proof to back their claims. Postive OR negative.

You, Flarty, have yet to produce anything substantial in defense of your claims, save for pointless ad hominem and claims that you know everything better than a source ever would, so your opinion must be your most valid source. So I call Bull****.

You get pissy.
And here we are. Either bring an argument or stop attacking me every time I bring something to the table that you refuse to acknowlege at all.
You complained I wasn't bringing the argument, so I have. Now, argue or shut up, and accept defeat.




I've watched this before, but it's been a little while now. Now I can see it again at least.

LMAO @ all of that, im sorry you must be a nerd or wannabe pharmacist, i aint going to argue with you and make it as personal as you are doing so (making it this personal and getting so inflamed in such a discussion suggests something to hide) and if you watched it before you would not need to ask me for a source of where some of my claims have come from :huh:. you carry on thinking your always so correct, i've gave up on a lost soul who does think its so important to be right or wrong, a debate is never based on fact's alone, but merely based on opinions of people who have a view on the subject matter, if it was based on facts then how would a debate about religion ever exist? look i already know you can never you admit your wrong simply from the Dutch/Belgium fiasco, so go argue with yourself until you convince your subconscious your correct. At the end of the day its like having a debate with Stalin, if i wont agree you resort to childish and verbal remarks or the all knowing power that "you've read something on the matter". just because you can list off a long list of chemicals doesn't mean you've tried them, in fact it makes you look so more pathetic as if you need me to believe you. anyway carry on with your day to day business, im fed up of debating with a narrow minded person such as yourself who cant comprehend any other view points.

and i never said i know anything better than the source but it's easy to debunk one report from another with first hand experience, with yours views on the mater you would of followed nazi Germany on the anti-jew parade even if you knew the jews wasn't sub-human
And you show me one post where i have not acknowledged what you have said, in my view i have merely corrected what you have said.

sorry for the bad grammar, im drunk.

[Flarty]

P.S and your trying to shoot down my argument earlier with a report saying ecstacy affect people on long term basis due to increased seratosin levels, when its a wide held scientific fact that the after effects of seratosin levels are a decrease.

[Jabode]

Perhaps you may want to fix your post when your not drunk? It doesn't make much sense from the coherent stand point.

[Flarty]

nah **** it, i'm sober now and realise there's no chance of holding a respectable debate with RTanger due to his childish remarks and lack of ability to see other view points, which makes it pretty pointless for him to have a debate with anyone as he is incapable. So its pointless me trying to lay down my claims of any sort, he started to get childish and over protective when he made the false statement that the after effects of E increase seratosin levels in the body.

[rtanger]

That's funny, this is exactly how I feel about you. You're just as guilty of everything you blame on me, if not in this debate, but in others. To be perfectly honest you're the most frustrating person to talk to on the entire forum..
And you what? You're right. It was pathetic of me to make that last post- Pathetic for me to stoop to such a level to prove some meaningless point to the likes of you. There's no reason for me to prove what I have done, and all indications that nothing I could type would allow you to believe me, not that it matters for **** anyways. There was really no point, but God I am sick of you acting like you're the only person who knows anything, you immediately disenfranchise anyone else's posts as your opinion apparently stands the strongest to you. But whatever. I'm not posting anymore in this thread, it's lost its topic pages ago now.

And my statement about serotonin was not incorrect, but I certainly could have worded it better than I did, I'll admit--

Four deaths following the ingestion of moclobemide and MDMA ('ecstasy') are described. The probable cause of death in each case was serotonin syndrome as a result of an interaction between the two drugs. As none of the victims had been prescribed moclobemide it seems that each had taken the drug to enhance the effects of MDMA, with fatal consequences. Warnings are needed against misinformed attempts to potentiate the pharmacological effects of illicit drugs.

We all know someone who boosts their highs with potentiators, and for the misinformed, combining ecstasy and MAOI's or SSRI's and not allowing the reuptake of serotonin can cause this potentially fatal condition.

As for serotonin depletion, that's the result of not letting your body rebuild its chemical stores, and repeated use of ecstasy without ample downtime or boosting production with supplements such as 5-HTP can be very damaging to your brain's delicate chemistry.

That's probably not clear enough either, but it's better. Someone with a decent level of reading comprehension should be able to divine my intent quite easily.

[Dr.Aaron]

teh pot is awesome! But not without it's consequences. :rolleyes:

[Jabode]

^I think he just summarized our arguements in 1 sentence...

[Dr.Aaron]

Haha I don't even know what they're talking about and skipped about every post... Cool I guess that I managed to sumerize without reading...

[Sersoft.corp]

This thread is awesome, I love to see smart people debate about random stuff on a gaming forum:lol:

[Flarty]

i would continue to debate but i cant be bothered, i might get called a tool or a **** wad again. I think this is Rtanger way of intelligent debate when he is wrong about something.

And Dr.Aaron has indeed spoke wise words :P

[Dr.Aaron]

Wow my random comment gets post of the day. :P

Yeah just leave this topic alone, so RTranger has noone to argue with.

[El]

Don't let this thread die! You fools!

We were getting somewhere!

Personally, I've smoked it

[Jabode]

We should have made a poll...

[Kester]

Flarty and RTanger you can both stop it.

[Flarty]

No worrys youth i already have,

He started it anyway j/k :P

[Blairyfairy]

Heres the question id like to ask people who seriously thinks that it is more harmfull than alcohol? If you are some one has smoked marijuana at least once you would know alcohol hinders you ten fold what marijuana could ever try to do to you. People for ads on television for anti drug compaigns in the michigan area potray people being stoned and ignorant to every thing around them and driving their car over 12 year old little girls. These are the ads put out by co-workers with my own parent I know firsthand that the people who are making false statement are not potraying their own feelings but are only being paid by local polotitions so they can promote drug false drg awareness for their next election.
I personaly have been a situation where the driver of the car I was in was stoned and a semi was crashing into our lane going about 70mph. The driver did not just save every ones live in the vehicle by dodging the later found out numbers of a 23 car pile up, and afterwards walked car to car helping people.

[Jabode]

@Kester Whats with the red text color? You seem to use it alot.

@Fairy That just agrees with my earlier arguement the instead of making pot legal, we should make smoking and drinking illegal.

[Tesseract]

I still say Pot SHOULD by all logical arguments be legal. Despite baseless arguments, I've not seen a single solid FACT saying POT is bad enough to require it status as an illigal drug in so many places. I'm just glad I can get it freely when I need it here. I'd hate to be involved in the american drug war driving up prices and such. I paid 100 bucks for a bottle of boze tonight and I've also got a garbage bag of pot for 10 bucks, neither will harm me in any other way than hurting my bank account. Which does the more harm then inn the real world? Personally I think a garbage bag of pot is great considering it will take me a couple months to go t hrough it and the bottle of absynth is already half gone! ****! Countries really need to progress their thinking on this subject I think.

[Flarty]

to be fair, if you look at Holland (not Belgium) stoned criminals make for lazy criminals :P

[El]

I still say Pot SHOULD by all logical arguments be legal. Despite baseless arguments, I've not seen a single solid FACT saying POT is bad enough to require it status as an illigal drug in so many places. I'm just glad I can get it freely when I need it here. I'd hate to be involved in the american drug war driving up prices and such. I paid 100 bucks for a bottle of boze tonight and I've also got a garbage bag of pot for 10 bucks, neither will harm me in any other way than hurting my bank account. Which does the more harm then inn the real world? Personally I think a garbage bag of pot is great considering it will take me a couple months to go t hrough it and the bottle of absynth is already half gone! ****! Countries really need to progress their thinking on this subject I think.

Lol, how'd you get that much?

[Flarty]

the real question is what services did she offer other than the $10 for it :ohmy:

[Jabode]

^Shiver...

[El]

the real question is what services did she offer other than the $10 for it :ohmy:Truth.

[Kester]

@Kester Whats with the red text color? You seem to use it alot.

@Fairy That just agrees with my earlier arguement the instead of making pot legal, we should make smoking and drinking illegal.
It's to make it stand out as it comes from a forum moderation point of view. When I, or my team for that matter, are speaking in terms of their role on the forums and not as a member their text will be red.

Basically you should take heed of a moderator who's text is in red.

[Jabode]

Its sad we live in a world where I moderator must change his text color to be heard.:cry:

[Kester]

Not really, considering the amount I actually post and the varied (textual) tones I use, sometimes it needs to be made clear when I am messing about or not.

Also people can sometimes skim through threads, the red makes them stop and take notice. Like you have done in this thread.

[Tesseract]

Lol, how'd you get that much?

A friend of mine from the next place over. She had more than she could store, so she gave a few deals to close friends.

[El]

I see. Where do you live? Hook me up!

[Blah3156]

what you do to your health is your problem
btw like tigger said there are other things to calm you down : do sports, **** a tree, go for a walk, yell at old people for being senile but don't do anything that may damage your health, ,that'd be stupid

PS : On he first day God said let there be light and Chuck Norris replied : Say please!