Silk Road Was “The Most Responsible” Drug Market In History

D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
If the death toll is less than alcohol or tobacco, then legalize it... because people that want it will get it one way or another, just like during the prohibition. Except during the prohibition some people went blind from watered down contaminated alcohol, that they paid a fortune for, and created organized druglords... kinda like we see today.

Alcohol abuse kills 88K each year, and 443K each year from tobacco.

For example the number of recorded cases of premature death from cannabis use is currently 0. Smoking anything is surely unhealthy, but people aren't smoking much of it compared to chain smoking tobacco users.

1 in 5 deaths in the United States are now associated with obesity, and yet Mountain Dew, Dairy Queen, and Dominos Pizza are not illegal even though those are clearly abused as well, with high-fructose corn syrup in almost every product you can think of, killing far more people than alcohol and tobacco combined.

TL;DR: We have f'd up priorities.

The 0% death rate I have and will always call BS on, you are ingesting smoke, and everything in it into your lungs, you are also taking in lots of THC, my father who use to smoke had this problem, at this point in his life he was starting to get older and smoke more, he ended up having a stroke, which just so happened after a pretty long smoke session, after the first stroke along with bad memory he started to smoke more once he returned home, and had a second stroke within 2 weeks, the doctor told him this was a bad idea, was released and as soon as he was home (after 3 days in the hospital), he went on benge smoking....Had a stroke the same day, with lots and LOTS of taking by most family members and the doctor we got him to quit, and to this day (many years later) has never had another stroke, though his thinking, reaction time and memory are still nothing like they were before the strokes.

Now, with all that said, even if it would kill you, and we knew this, it was his choice, and it should be everyone's choice. We are ok with killing an unborn child because it is the woman's body and she can do as she wishes, but you are not allowed even access to some plants? This is a ridiculous notion. At the very least ALL "drugs" should be made legal and taxed like tobacco and alcohol, this will give access to drugs that have not been tampered with or cut/mixed with God knows what, and will also be a source of money flow (not like the government needs more), but rather than spending the millions we do on so called drug war, all that spending can be directed elsewhere that it would serve some good, and also supply an inflow of money, it would also drop our prison populations by a large percent and reduce spending on those as well.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,827
The 0% death rate I have and will always call BS on, you are ingesting smoke, and everything in it into your lungs, you are also taking in lots of THC, my father who use to smoke had this problem, at this point in his life he was starting to get older and smoke more, he ended up having a stroke, which just so happened after a pretty long smoke session, after the first stroke along with bad memory he started to smoke more once he returned home, and had a second stroke within 2 weeks, the doctor told him this was a bad idea, was released and as soon as he was home (after 3 days in the hospital), he went on benge smoking....Had a stroke the same day, with lots and LOTS of taking by most family members and the doctor we got him to quit, and to this day (many years later) has never had another stroke, though his thinking, reaction time and memory are still nothing like they were before the strokes.

FWIW, there have been studies on the health risks of Marijuana and so far none of them lead to death. Despite having a ridiculous number of known carcinogens it doesn't seem to cause cancer and may actually reduce your risk of some cancers (yeah I know, I challenged someone on this on this board years ago, but a USC or UCLA study showed it was likely true and I think there have been a few studies since then that support their conclusions).

Whether it causes emphysema or not, I don't know. I would think it would, but if you used a vaporizer...probably not.
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,452
FWIW, there have been studies on the health risks of Marijuana and so far none of them lead to death. Despite having a ridiculous number of known carcinogens it doesn't seem to cause cancer and may actually reduce your risk of some cancers (yeah I know, I challenged someone on this on this board years ago, but a USC or UCLA study showed it was likely true and I think there have been a few studies since then that support their conclusions).

Whether it causes emphysema or not, I don't know. I would think it would, but if you used a vaporizer...probably not.
You have to be very careful in assessing the state of scientific knowledge about marijuana because there haven't been many studies in the US about its safety precisely due to the bullshit surrounding decades of prohibition and where we choose to spend our money in relation to drug policy.

Other countries are steamrolling us in this regard, however. The latest issue of Time magazine just published an article about where we stand in regards to scientific knowledge about the use/danger of marijuana if anyone is curious. The article also referenced marijuana's ability to reduce certain cancers *but* without reading the study I can unequivocally state that's not going to be true when smoking it. Popping pills isn't going to satisfy a huge portion of the population of marijuana users.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
You have to be very careful in assessing the state of scientific knowledge about marijuana because there haven't been many studies in the US about its safety precisely due to the bullshit surrounding decades of prohibition and where we choose to spend our money in relation to drug policy.

Other countries are steamrolling us in this regard, however. The latest issue of Time magazine just published an article about where we stand in regards to scientific knowledge about the use/danger of marijuana if anyone is curious. The article also referenced marijuana's ability to reduce certain cancers *but* without reading the study I can unequivocally state that's not going to be true when smoking it. Popping pills isn't going to satisfy a huge portion of the population of marijuana users.
As long as the pill gets you equally high, they won't mind.

But the defacto standard should be that if the government can't prove something is VERY unhealthy, then it should be legal. We shouldn't have a burden of proof to show that say butter is healthy therefor it should be legal.
 

Germanium

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
270
You have to be very careful in assessing the state of scientific knowledge about marijuana because there haven't been many studies in the US about its safety precisely due to the bullshit surrounding decades of prohibition and where we choose to spend our money in relation to drug policy.


Yet the US government has a patent on Cannabinoids

THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) is another of the cannabinoids that has been shown to be neuroprotective in cell cultures, but this protection was believed to be mediated by interaction at the cannabinoid receptor, and so would be accompanied by undesired psychotropic side effects (gets you high).
Please, they know it's beneficial. They've studied its benefits. They patented its benefits. They'll now profit off its benefits. The US government has studied most of the common drugs very extensively over the last 50 plus years.

CBD oil is being legalized right now in some states and studied way more because they're finding that it helps a lot of people in a lot of different ways (and doesn't get you high).
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
FWIW, there have been studies on the health risks of Marijuana and so far none of them lead to death. Despite having a ridiculous number of known carcinogens it doesn't seem to cause cancer and may actually reduce your risk of some cancers (yeah I know, I challenged someone on this on this board years ago, but a USC or UCLA study showed it was likely true and I think there have been a few studies since then that support their conclusions).

Whether it causes emphysema or not, I don't know. I would think it would, but if you used a vaporizer...probably not.

Cancer and stroke are not the same thing. THC is known to have effects on allot of things, some of them in a positive way, but not all of them.

I am sure it can have effects that lead to death, but as I said, it doesn't matter, if it causes cancer, it doesn't matter, lots of things do, it also doesn't matter if it can kill you, water can kill you etc etc. The point being, if you accept the possible outcome from using (anything) and are not violating the rights/life of someone else, who are you to tell them they can't?

I should also note, that I think drug use is stupid, I believe some drugs have allot to offer and could open up other treatments for things we don't even know about because of the lack of study, but I am also doubtful those uses are the same kind of uses people are doing when getting high with them. However, stupid or not, I think people have the right to do it.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,827
You have to be very careful in assessing the state of scientific knowledge about marijuana because there haven't been many studies in the US about its safety precisely due to the bullshit surrounding decades of prohibition and where we choose to spend our money in relation to drug policy.

Other countries are steamrolling us in this regard, however. The latest issue of Time magazine just published an article about where we stand in regards to scientific knowledge about the use/danger of marijuana if anyone is curious. The article also referenced marijuana's ability to reduce certain cancers *but* without reading the study I can unequivocally state that's not going to be true when smoking it. Popping pills isn't going to satisfy a huge portion of the population of marijuana users.

The study I'm referring to was a long term study of regular marijuana users. Eating pot isn't how most get high.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,827
Cancer and stroke are not the same thing. THC is known to have effects on allot of things, some of them in a positive way, but not all of them.

I am sure it can have effects that lead to death, but as I said, it doesn't matter, if it causes cancer, it doesn't matter, lots of things do, it also doesn't matter if it can kill you, water can kill you etc etc. The point being, if you accept the possible outcome from using (anything) and are not violating the rights/life of someone else, who are you to tell them they can't?

I should also note, that I think drug use is stupid, I believe some drugs have allot to offer and could open up other treatments for things we don't even know about because of the lack of study, but I am also doubtful those uses are the same kind of uses people are doing when getting high with them. However, stupid or not, I think people have the right to do it.

I'm surprised it'd increase strokes. Pot lowers your blood pressure, which should decrease strokes.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
You have to be very careful in assessing the state of scientific knowledge about marijuana because there haven't been many studies in the US about its safety precisely due to the bullshit surrounding decades of prohibition and where we choose to spend our money in relation to drug policy.

Other countries are steamrolling us in this regard, however. The latest issue of Time magazine just published an article about where we stand in regards to scientific knowledge about the use/danger of marijuana if anyone is curious. The article also referenced marijuana's ability to reduce certain cancers *but* without reading the study I can unequivocally state that's not going to be true when smoking it. Popping pills isn't going to satisfy a huge portion of the population of marijuana users.


You can 'unequivocally state' whatever you want, but considering you aren't a scientist who has done any research to come to that conclusion, and haven't even read the article, your statement means nothing....
 

Germanium

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
270
you are also taking in lots of THC
That's a good thing. I don't even smoke/vape weed and I want to be inhaling CBD's.


my father who use to smoke had this problem, at this point in his life he was starting to get older and smoke more, he ended up having a stroke, which just so happened after a pretty long smoke session, after the first stroke along with bad memory he started to smoke more once he returned home, and had a second stroke within 2 weeks, the doctor told him this was a bad idea, was released and as soon as he was home (after 3 days in the hospital), he went on benge smoking....Had a stroke the same day, with lots and LOTS of taking by most family members and the doctor we got him to quit, and to this day (many years later) has never had another stroke, though his thinking, reaction time and memory are still nothing like they were before the strokes.
Did he smoke cigarettes (I'm thinking he did)? Did he drink alcohol? How overweight was he? Does your family genes have a history of strokes? I ask because I think smoking weed was the least of his problems. However that said, all the wiser pothead people are vaping marijuana now so no more of the inhaling smoke issues.
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
I'm surprised it'd increase strokes. Pot lowers your blood pressure, which should decrease strokes.

"A plethora of case reports and series describe the association of cannabis with IS. In a study of 218 New Zealanders with IS or transient ischemic attack (TIA), 25 (15.6 percent) had urine drug screens (UDS) positive for cannabis compared to 8.1 percent of control participants. In a logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, and ethnicity, cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of IS or TIA. However, after adjusting for tobacco use, an association independent of tobacco could not be established. A recent review of literature by Wolff, et al. revealed 59 case reports of cannabis-related stroke; the majority being IS (83 percent). Mean age in this group was 33 years, and the ratio of men to women was 4.9 to 1.5 IS was more frequent in chronic than occasional users. Findings suggested a temporal association between cannabis consumption and IS, noting several reports that stroke occurred while the drug was actually being smoked or up to 30 minutes after the last joint had been smoked. In a case study of 17 IS patients who were exposed to marijuana, the causal relationship was justified by the absence of other vascular risk factors, a temporal link between symptom onset and cannabis exposure, and the recurrence of symptoms with re-exposure. Another literature review by Desbois et al. noted 71 cases of cannabis users with IS All patients were ‘‘heavy’’ marijuana smokers and in 76.5 percent, acute symptoms occurred during or within 30 minutes of consuming the drug.

The mechanism by which cannabis may cause IS is not completely understood, but there are theories. Aside from the development of atherosclerosis, THC may trigger reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS). Animal studies have shown THC has peripheral vasoconstrictor properties.

Wolff, et al. reported the presence of multifocal intracranial stenosis in 21 percent of marijuana users who presented with IS. This form of cerebral angiopathy appeared to be reversible in three to six months following cessation of marijuana use. Desbois and colleagues reported multifocal stenosis in 50 percent of patients, solitary focal stenosis or occlusion in 22.6 percent, and RCVS in 43 percent. A retrospective review of patients with RCVS reported an incidence of 32 percent for marijuana use; almost half used only this drug.

Cardio-embolic IS has also been described in conjunction with cannabis-associated MI. Disruption of myocardial supply and demand equilibrium leading to ischemia was described earlier. There are, in all likelihood, multiple mechanisms for IS that are triggered or potentiated by THC. The reason why IS or other vascular events occur in some chronic users and not others may point to a predisposition, perhaps genetic, but still undetermined. At present, the only consistent feature of patients with cannabis-associated IS is male gender."

From: Practical Neurology

Also a research paper on the matter, though none have found or shown what factor it is, or if its many, the link of the two has been growing and getting more and more research.

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/22/3/406.full.pdf

"I examined two young men who developed cerebral infarction associated with heavy marijuana smoking. Both were light tobacco smokers, but they did not drink alcohol or use other street drugs. Diagnostic work-up for nonatherosclerotic causes of stroke was unremarkable. I postulate that marijuana-associated alterations in systemic blood pressure resulted in vasospasm, leading to strokes in these patients."


Did he smoke cigarettes (I'm thinking he did)? Did he drink alcohol? How overweight was he? Does your family genes have a history of strokes? I ask because I think smoking weed was the least of his problems. However that said, all the wiser pothead people are vaping marijuana now so no more of the inhaling smoke issues.

No, did not smoke cigs, no one in my family does, he never liked (according to him) cigs, only pot. He was and has always been around 140lbs, fairly slender guy, use to be into lightweight boxing when he was younger and always maintained the build/size, so yes, he was also always active. He also does not drink, or should I say only on occasion, as he might have a drink 2-3 times a month. This was gone through by the doctors on risk factors etc etc.
 

Phoenix333

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,510
Thread starts out about the Silk Road and immediately the pro-legalization crowd jumps on the soapbox.
 

Germanium

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
270
"The reason why IS or other vascular events occur in some chronic users and not others may point to a predisposition, perhaps genetic, but still undetermined. At present, the only consistent feature of patients with cannabis-associated IS is male gender."
[Sounds to me like males predispositioned to getting traumatic brain injury = roughnecks]

Some people get murdered by their own blood or are allergic to water, peanuts, or milk. Some peoples bodies kill them every single day on this planet. I don't think you can blame marijuana when these people came exactly this way long before they did (any) marijuana. Tens of millions get along just fine in the US alone without issue that don't have this currently unknown predisposition. What we do know though is that some people die while jogging, the jogging didn't kill them, their predisposition to heart problems did. Your Dad also had another serious underlying problem that's still there and it may come back without the marijuana, what then?
use to be into lightweight boxing when he was younger
My very first thought: Undiagnosed/undiagnosable head trauma. All it takes is one good head hit for a lifetime of serious brain problems over the long haul and your Dad boxed. I'd blame that over the marijuana. On top of that, I don't think people with any head trauma should be doing any psychoactive drugs anyway. Ask your Dad sometime about the hardest hits he's taken in and outside the ring and take some notes for the future.

Last thing.
Dementia pugilistica

The condition, which occurs in athletes having suffered repetitive blows to the head, manifests as dementia, or declining mental ability, problems with memory, and Parkinsonism, or tremors and lack of coordination.[2] It can also cause speech problems[2] and an unsteady gait. Patients with DP may be prone to inappropriate or explosive behavior and may display pathological jealousy or paranoia.[2] Individuals displaying these symptoms also can be characterized as "punchy", another term for a person suffering from DP. Source
You described your Dad like that from the strokes but he couldn've been well on his way there just from boxing, alone.

In my opinion, your Dad ruined his brain by boxing and you're just blaming his marijuana usage.
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,452
You can 'unequivocally state' whatever you want, but considering you aren't a scientist who has done any research to come to that conclusion, and haven't even read the article, your statement means nothing....
Actually, I am a scientist

The study I'm referring to was a long term study of regular marijuana users. Eating pot isn't how most get high.
Synthesized marijuana or pills, not edibles, are how research is conducted. If you're referencing a longitudinal, non-controlled study then it's not worth much. No reputable clinical studies are going to sanction smoking as a method of ingestion. I certainly wouldn't approve that protocol and I doubt any of the medical doctors on our IRB would, either.

The links between smoking (anything) and cancer, lung damage, and vascular damage are indisputable. That certain chemicals in marijuana are demonstrating the ability to shrink and/or eliminate *some* cancer cells is not an endorsement of smoking it.

I'm surprised it'd increase strokes. Pot lowers your blood pressure, which should decrease strokes.
*Smoking*, however, damages the vascular system.
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
[Sounds to me like males predispositioned to getting traumatic brain injury = roughnecks]

Some people get murdered by their own blood or are allergic to water, peanuts, or milk. Some peoples bodies kill them every single day on this planet. I don't think you can blame marijuana when these people came exactly this way long before they did (any) marijuana. Tens of millions get along just fine in the US alone without issue that don't have this currently unknown predisposition. What we do know though is that some people die while jogging, the jogging didn't kill them, their predisposition to heart problems did. Your Dad also had another serious underlying problem that's still there and it may come back without the marijuana, what then?
My very first thought: Undiagnosed/undiagnosable head trauma. All it takes is one good head hit for a lifetime of serious brain problems over the long haul and your Dad boxed. I'd blame that over the marijuana. On top of that, I don't think people with any head trauma should be doing any psychoactive drugs anyway. Ask your Dad sometime about the hardest hits he's taken in and outside the ring and take some notes for the future.

Last thing.
You described your Dad like that from the strokes but he couldn've been well on his way there just from boxing, alone.

In my opinion, your Dad ruined his brain by boxing and you're just blaming his marijuana usage.

You can always claim a predisposition or some other factor, if you want to pass it off. It wasn't the peanut that killed the person, it was a genetic predisposition to food allergies :rolleyes:

My father also has had CT and MRI scans, with no signs of past problems, this was a very extensive process for us at the time, if you want to argue with the doctor and his suggestion then be my guest, I am telling you what we were told was the cause and once it was removed it was no longer a problem.

Also, when I say he was into boxing, I do not mean he competed, he was into the sport and did sparing from time to time when he was young, don't make assumptions that he was some full time boxer taking a beating etc etc. and saying he could have been well on his way before the strokes, are you kidding me? Have you ever known someone close who has had a serious stroke and what they are like before and after? I am going to guess that is a no, as soon as the stroke hits, he was there, but not, you could ask him questions and he would try and answer, but he didn't know anything, he could not even tell you his own birth day, after a few weeks he started to recover but never fully, and to this day had trouble with recall, he can get it, but it takes a long time. He smoked for a long time and then at one point started smoking every day, and along comes the stroke, second one was not long after smoking, the 3rd was while he was smoking, and now, many years later and no longer using (will be 80 this year), he has never had another stroke.

If someone dies from eating a peanut, that death is considered to be caused by peanuts, call it a predisposition all you like. And we don't even know how the mechanism works, but we know there is one, be it related to dosage, allergy, or some chemical reaction we do not know yet, the simple fact remains, the claims to 0 deaths, I do not believe, you are welcome to and with how you defend it with so much fervor, I am willing to bet it is because you also smoke and will not believe it could have ANY negative effects no matter the evidence.

Also, one last thing, if you are right, and for some reason there was another cause to the strokes other than smoking, then why has he not had another? Considering a person who has only had one stroke has a 10 fold chance of having another and only gets worse the more you have, he has also aged allot since then, almost 30 years as a matter of fact, and stroke risk doubles every 10 years. So, go ahead and believe that there is no negative side to smoking, I am not going to bother any longer.
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,452
You can always claim a predisposition or some other factor, if you want to pass it off.
Some people are oversensitive to anything that doesn't cast marijuana in a 100% positive light due to decades of propaganda. He and others are going to respond to your anecdote with skepticism, and some may even become antagonistic, because they can't separate the allies from opponents and any calls for even-keeled responses rather than full legalization are likely to be understood as opposition, unfortunately.
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
any calls for even-keeled responses rather than full legalization are likely to be understood as opposition, unfortunately.

Except, as in my first posts, I think it should be legal, along with other things, however, it seems many people can only see in black and white, there exists no grey to them, so I agree with what you are saying.
 

Germanium

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
270
It wasn't the peanut that killed the person, it was a genetic predisposition to food allergies

Exactly! A peanut can't kill 99.9% of the human population. It's not the peanut but that specific humans reaction to it. A defective mutation.

My father also has had CT and MRI scans, with no signs of past problems, this was a very extensive process for us at the time, if you want to argue with the doctor and his suggestion then be my guest, I am telling you what we were told was the cause and once it was removed it was no longer a problem.
It takes days to decades to never for the signs to show and sometimes they still can't spot them because we're still learning so much about the human brain. It's 2015 and only now are we even learning how quickly one can get brain damage, or PTSD for that matter.

Also, when I say he was into boxing, I do not mean he competed, he was into the sport and did sparing from time to time when he was young, don't make assumptions that he was some full time boxer taking a beating etc etc.
Last time I heard people get hurt in sparring sessions all the time. You're acting like they weren't hitting each other in the head while boxing...lol.There was a UFC fighter recently that had been knocked out twice during training before ever getting into the cage. Yes, extreme case, still, that was just sparring. I also said it only takes one head hit, one, that's all it could take. This is what we're learning about traumatic brain injuries these days. One hit can do it all.


and saying he could have been well on his way before the strokes, are you kidding me?
Of course he got worse from the stroke. The boxing still could've put him on that path to the stroke, which is what I was saying.

Have you ever known someone close who has had a serious stroke and what they are like before and after?
Yes, they smoked cigarettes though.


I am going to guess that is a no, as soon as the stroke hits, he was there, but not, you could ask him questions and he would try and answer, but he didn't know anything, he could not even tell you his own birth day, after a few weeks he started to recover but never fully, and to this day had trouble with recall, he can get it, but it takes a long time.
I think you think I meant the stroke did it all when I'm saying any traumatic brain injury puts you at higher risk for strokes in the future, even decades later. Your brain isn't ever supposed to get bounced off your skull in a normal lifetime. If it happens, you're automatically put into a higher risk category for things like strokes in the future.

He smoked for a long time and then at one point started smoking every day, and along comes the stroke, second one was not long after smoking, the 3rd was while he was smoking, and now, many years later and no longer using (will be 80 this year), he has never had another stroke.
Maybe because all of his strokes were in the area of his brain that received the traumatic brain injury and since he survived and that area of his brain is now mostly dead, he's at lower risk, now. Were all his strokes in the same area?

And we don't even know how the mechanism works, but we know there is one, be it related to dosage, allergy, or some chemical reaction we do not know yet, the simple fact remains, the claims to 0 deaths,I do not believe
Yes, we know the mechanism is being male and not much else. We also know that males with normal (no predisposition) brains don't suffer from it. I'd guess your Dad would've still had the strokes if he smoked cigarettes and had never smoked weed (ever) or maybe even if he didn't ever smoke anything but we can't go that route now can we.

you are welcome to and with how you defend it with so much fervor, I am willing to bet it is because you also smoke and will not believe it could have ANY negative effects no matter the evidence.
I do not vape/smoke weed at all, none, at all. I did in my teens but that was over a decade ago. I'm just pro-pot because it's obviously safer than sugar or alcohol.

Also, one last thing, if you are right, and for some reason there was another cause to the strokes other than smoking, then why has he not had another?
Probably because those strokes he has already had wiped out (ruined) that area of his brain that was damaged to begin with to cause the strokes in the first place. Possibly, that.

Let me explain it this way. If you fight once, you risk getting hit in your head, if you get hit in your head, you risk potential serious brain problems down the road, from that one hit. Now think of a boxer or a brawler.

Even the commentator for the UFC Joe Rogan has seen so many fighters getting so much brain damage over his career that he's telling certain guys displaying early symptoms to quit fighting now or suffer their fate. He might get fired over time for it, too.

"I always wonder how much longer I'm going to do this, anyway," said Rogan. "The one thing that I'm conflicted about, this is a hard thing to say, but [brain trauma] is the one thing I'm conflicted about when it comes to fighting. As I get older and the more I understand about the damage that people take... - Joe Rogan
Considering a person who has only had one stroke has a 10 fold chance of having another and only gets worse the more you have, he has also aged allot since then, almost 30 years as a matter of fact, and stroke risk doubles every 10 years. So, go ahead and believe that there is no negative side to smoking, I am not going to bother any longer.
There is a side effect to everything, lets not play games, even sparring boxing. That side effect is far worse than smoking marijuana.

That said everyone is moving to vaping marijuana in the future so the 'smoke' part won't matter. And again, no, I don't smoke marijuana, as I have PTSD and it just makes it worse.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
So as an example, when Bill Murray was 20 years old, he was making a joke at the airport that he had a bomb in his suitcase. Someone overheard him, and they found 10 pounds of marijuana.

For the fake bomb threat + 10lbs of Marijuana in 1970, Bill Murray received five years of probation, and served no time.

Bill Murray then later became a great comedian contributing to society and hurting no one.

Today by contrast, you get 2-years hard jail time for being found with an 8th of marijuana, thanks to the war on drugs, potentially ruining people's lives.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/one-more-reason-love-bill-murray

Luckily, poor Bill who fell down massively FACE PLANTING coming out of David Letterman's going-away cake, fell down a second time really hard flopping out of a chair on another set just two hours later, at least had a run of good luck living in a time without all this BS that would have probably led him in a totally different life direction if he were caught with 10lbs of MJ at an airport after joking about bombs today.
 

VladDracule

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,043
Honestly, we should be asking ourselves why a grown adult can't decide for themselves what they should or shouldn't put in their body. I've never been walking down the street and been assaulted, where one guy holds my arms behind my back, and another guy forces me to smoke marijuana or gives me ecstasy or mushrooms and then says "enjoy, motherfugga!" and walks away. As long as you can verify you are over say 21, IMO most drugs that are reasonably safe to consume should be treated the same as alcohol.

yeah literally impossible with the way our food industry is, you dont even know what half the shit that goes into your body is
 

Germanium

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
270
Filthy criminals engaging in illegal activities.

1. If 'people' want something, it shouldn't be illegal to begin with, period. The US population leads the entire world in drug use, mind you, including your last three presidents. Majority of US prisoners are in prison for nonviolent drug offenses as well. The US government should've learned everything there was to learn about this topic with alcohol prohibition (yeah, they know). It's why they had to run/ran so many anti-illegal-drug campaigns over the years to sway the ignorant masses....all while they allow just as dangerous pharmaceutical drugs onto the market (for a bribe) that kill people every single day and all that while the CIA deals in drugs, murders, and guns, worldwide. It has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with real safety (making it illegal makes us less safe) and everything to do with the US GOV keeping everything the way they like it. Which is profiting from both sides of drug dealing, illegal and legal drugs.


2. Are you wearing your D.A.R.E shirt today? Just wondering.


3. Did You Know?
  • 4.5 million American kids have reported that they've abused prescription drugs.
  • 2.1 million American kids have intentionally abused cough syrup.
  • Half of teens do not see a great risk in abusing prescription (Rx) or over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. Teens believe that abuse of Rx and OTC medicines is safer than street drugs.
  • Over half of teens agree prescription drugs are easier to get than illegal drugs. The primary sources being their own home, a friend's house or the Internet.
  • 1 in 3 teens report having a close friend who abuses Rx pain relievers to get high.
  • 1 in 4 teens report having a close friend who abuses cough medicine to get high.
  • Only 31% of teens "learn a lot about the risk of drugs" from their parents.
  • Emergency room visits due to abuse of prescription drugs are more than the number of visits due to marijuana and heroin combined.
Source
4. Why aren't prescription drugs illegal when they're the most abused and sometimes more deadly (legal) drugs?

If it's all about 'protecting our kids' than prescription drug companies can't be trusted. I wonder if it has anything to do with multibillion dollar pharmaceutical corporations just merely running the new age drug dealing business, worldwide, and paid off the US GOV to do it. Hmmm, reality? It is to me! Why are cigarettes still legal when it kills the most people in the US? Oh, yes, they paid off the government and then never even attempted to make a safer cigarette (which they obviously can do). They actually removed cigarettes without nicotine in them off the market, never to be seen again.... :confused:

Was marijuana really made illegal (partly) because rich people with something to gain financially from doing so used fear mongering to trick the common folk like yourself into thinking it made Mexicans rape white women/men? Yes, they use to proclaim this shit in the old newspapers...lol. #PoliticsAsUsual. You're exactly the kind of person they wanted you to be. You think exactly what they told you to think from school forward. Congratulations!

Achievement_unlocked_brainwashing_complete.png


Well seeing that your average stoner doesn't bathe...

:rolleyes:

You're thinking of dirty people, not stoners. I think you knew that though.
 

Phoenix333

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,510
I remember your last soapbox over this. You want to keep throwing insults or just skip straight to the part where you attempt to threaten me?
 

Germanium

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
270
I remember your last soapbox over this. You want to keep throwing insults or just skip straight to the part where you attempt to threaten me?
So...you insult tens of millions of Americans then retreat into your underworld where you can say anything you want and no one can respond to it?

Also, look at your posts (Like in this very thread), they're pretty stupid and don't add much, nothing actually. I'm sure if I had vaped some weed prior to reading your useless posts it would've been more entertaining but I don't use drugs and the ones I hate the most are by prescription only.

Good Day Little Buddy.
 

Phoenix333

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,510
So...you insult tens of millions of Americans then retreat into your underworld where you can say anything you want and no one can respond to it?
You responded to what I said on this board. It's quite impossible to say something about drugs without you responding. You want to take up the banner for druggies? You're making great progress by picking fights with people that will never agree with you, and I don't retreat from my principles and beliefs. I believe you're wrong, plain and simple. You just can't stand it that there are people that don't think the same way you do and that you can't shut them up no matter how hard you try. As for insulting people... oh, that's a good one. There are plenty of stoners that don't bathe. That's a fact, not an insult, just as it is a fact that illegal drug use is illegal.

Also, look at your posts (Like in this very thread), they're pretty stupid and don't add much, nothing actually. I'm sure if I had vaped some weed prior to reading your useless posts it would've been more entertaining but I don't use drugs and the ones I hate the most are by prescription only.
You're not a user, and I'm assuming you're not a dealer. That means you champion a cause in which you have no vested interest. That's a useless gesture. If you are a dealer of illegal drugs then you're already breaking the law and eventually you will be caught, prosecuted, and hopefully convicted - just like all dealers should be. I celebrate every arrest and conviction because I know it's one more poison peddler off the street, but what I really love are the big busts, where a $million worth of pot, coke, or heroin is seized and destroyed, and illegal weapons are confiscated - which means mandatory Federal prison for the perps. Those are the best.

Good Day Little Buddy.
I am most certainly not your buddy.
 

MisterClean

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,846
That means you champion a cause in which you have no vested interest. That's a useless gesture

I'd hardly call championing for more freedoms and the repeal of victimless crime laws a useless gesture. Millions of tax dollars are wasted,our freedoms are being trampled, and countless lives ruined because of your hopeless and immoral drug war.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
I'd hardly call championing for more freedoms and the repeal of victimless crime laws a useless gesture. Millions of tax dollars are wasted,our freedoms are being trampled, and countless lives ruined because of your hopeless and immoral drug war.
Amen, we are all paying for that LITERALLY out of our pockets every year. The cost is very much tangible beyond all the abstract effects.

And if we could show that, hey, at least its working and our streets are drug free... but they aren't, and anyone can buy marijuana with ease in any major city. The only real difference is massively inflated price with the money flowing to organized crime, supporting gangs and gang related violence over selling-turf, while also providing a "gateway" to other narcotics that we may wish to remain controlled substances since the "soft" drugs can be either laced or encouraged to try free samples of hard drugs when going to drug dealers.

At some point, we need to throw in the towel and show that this simply doesn't work, and look at places like the Netherlands and show that the sky doesn't fall when people are allowed to CHOOSE. Again, people like myself that don't want to smoke because its bad for you still won't. And the people that do, will just have cheaper products that they pay taxes on and run drug dealers out of business.
 

Germanium

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
270
You responded to what I said on this board.
Yes, I responded to a stupid post that you made. Do you want that to be illegal, too?

You want to take up the banner for druggies?
Freedom is bad - Phoenix333

You're making great progress by picking fights with people that will never agree with you, and I don't retreat from my principles and beliefs. I believe you're wrong, plain and simple.
No one picked a fight with you...lol. Just pointed out your comments were stupid and they were. On top of that it's almost like you think no one else agreed with me in this thread because you don't and I really don't care what you think other proving that you're simply ignorant on the issue. Your comments alone proved that though. I'd love to see your sources stating that the average druggie has worse hygiene than your average US citizen . Let me know.

You just can't stand it that there are people that don't think the same way you do and that you can't shut them up no matter how hard you try.
You're projecting here, man. I was merely arguing my view with the facts I know while on the flip side your 'druggies don't take baths' post was just trolling the issue. Let me guess, you've seen a couple dirty people on drugs so they all must be like that. Have you ever seen dirty people not on drugs? Just wondering.

As for insulting people... oh, that's a good one. There are plenty of stoners that don't bathe.That's a fact, not an insult...
Last time I checked there's plenty of all kinds of dirty people regardless of what they consume on their free time. I see hard workers everyday that get dirty busting their asses.

just as it is a fact that illegal drug use is illegal.
:rolleyes: Really, thanks for pointing that out. I'd like to point out to you that the illegal drug use of marijuana is becoming 'legal' more and more everyday. Do you see how that works? It goes both ways, buddy.

You're not a user, and I'm assuming you're not a dealer. That means you champion a cause in which you have no vested interest. That's a useless gesture.
I champion more freedom and less government. If they made it illegal to drive tomorrow you'd be calling everyone wanting to drive still dirt bags because 'it's illegal'. :rolleyes: You're the one with the issues here.


If you are a dealer of illegal drugs then you're already breaking the law and eventually you will be caught, prosecuted, and hopefully convicted - just like all dealers should be.
LOL. I can tell you wish that was the case. :D

No, buddy, I don't sell any drugs. I'd rather have drugs completely legal so it makes us more safe though. Making them illegal is what made the violence to begin with. If the US GOV made TV's illegal people would be killing each other over them as well. The same way people were killing each other over alcohol during alcohol prohibition. There is money in taking risks and people want money.


I celebrate every arrest and conviction because I know it's one more poison peddler off the street, but what I really love are the big busts, where a $million worth of pot, coke, or heroin is seized and destroyed, and illegal weapons are confiscated - which means mandatory Federal prison for the perps. Those are the best.
The CIA didn't get anytime when they got caught bringing in $100 million dollars of cocaine. They're still on the streets doing the same exact things. Just saying.


I am most certainly not your buddy.
You're definitely my buddy now, I'll see to it.
 

Phoenix333

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,510
There's one glaring problem with this - and this is why I could never support legalization even if I thought drugs were harmless, and that is this: Do you really think the government entities of the United States - state and federal, and local levels - will not find another way to spend those tax dollars, that they're somehow going to magically cut taxes even if they just legalized everything overnight? That's the one thing the government absolutely excels at is finding ways to tax people and waste their money. Legalization isn't going to fix that. They'll just find another way to spend it if the DEA was completely defunded.

You rail against prescription drugs, but think about it. Who do you think is going to get the business if it's made legal, a bunch of farmers on a hippie commune? Look at Responsible Ohio. They're an oligopoly of rich people that want to completely control the market in Ohio, and they're the ones doing the best job at pushing to legalize it. The "investors" would control everything because it would still outlaw mom-and-pop backyard growers. Oligopoly and monopoly are synonymous, so there goes your low prices - up in smoke. Do you honestly think for one second that Big Business isn't going to be the one doing all the selling? This utopian pipe-dream will never work in the US because the same people that control the legal drugs now will be controlling the currently illegal ones once they're made legal. It will be MORE government control - not less - and it will be the same already rich people just getting richer, and the little guy will just get screwed once again. It will not solve addiction and abuse, it will just make it more accessible, and if you think the costs are high now, wait until health insurance gets a hold of it. Remember, thanks to Obamacare, EVERYONE MUST have health insurance, and anyone that's a user will get charged a higher premium to cover the risk - just like smokers already get. They WILL get their money, and anyone caught dealing on the black market so people can get things cheaper will still get the book thrown at them. You want proof? Look at the tobacco industry. Legalized drugs will get handled the same way. That fixes absolutely nothing.

You can think me ignorant, but I do know politics, government, and business well enough to tell you that your dream is nothing but a pipe dream because the power structure in the US is absolutely nothing like the Netherlands, and it never will be. @MisterClean as well: If you're serious about wanting more freedom, then focus on the most important thing: government corruption. Until you fix that get people of impeccable character running the government none of this matters. Yeah, I know, that's hard - impossible some might say, but hairless apes once flew to the moon and back on a giant burning stick. If someone told me that would happen a million years ago I would have cackled at the absurdity too, but this is America, where anything's possible. Fix that problem, then I'll be more than willing to re-evaluate my stance on all of this.
 

Phoenix333

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,510
@Germanium: Sorry, I was busy typing up a response to Ducman69 - who I VERY frequently disagree with - and MisterClean, while you were posting more of your juvenile attacks. You see, unlike you, they can actually present their case without being condescending and rude and hiding insults behind clever sentence structuring so that they can barely skirt the rules to avoid being banned.

Oh, and you will most certainly not be my buddy. There's this thing called an "Ignore List" that's a feature on these forums. You're getting the dubious honor of being added to it. I prefer to discuss issues with mature and reasoned minds, not bandy veiled insults with those who are completely unreasonable. Oh, and just as a reminder, PM's have a report post feature as well, so don't think about stalking and harassing me that way. After all, I'm sure that my tuning you out won't have any affect whatsoever on your temper and need to win every single little petty argument you instigate.

So farewell, you won't be missed.
 

Germanium

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
270
There's one glaring problem with this - and this is why I could never support legalization even if I thought drugs were harmless, and that is this: Do you really think the government entities of the United States - state and federal, and local levels - will not find another way to spend those tax dollars, that they're somehow going to magically cut taxes even if they just legalized everything overnight? That's the one thing the government absolutely excels at is finding ways to tax people and waste their money. Legalization isn't going to fix that. They'll just find another way to spend it if the DEA was completely defunded.

This has absolutely nothing to do with drug legalization, period. It's happening in every aspect of government. Deal with that issue on its own terms.

You rail against prescription drugs, but think about it. Who do you think is going to get the business if it's made legal, a bunch of farmers on a hippie commune? Look at Responsible Ohio. They're an oligopoly of rich people that want to completely control the market in Ohio, and they're the ones doing the best job at pushing to legalize it. The "investors" would control everything because it would still outlaw mom-and-pop backyard growers. Oligopoly and monopoly are synonymous, so there goes your low prices - up in smoke. Do you honestly think for one second that Big Business isn't going to be the one doing all the selling? This utopian pipe-dream will never work in the US because the same people that control the legal drugs now will be controlling the currently illegal ones once they're made legal. It will be MORE government control - not less - and it will be the same already rich people just getting richer, and the little guy will just get screwed once again. It will not solve addiction and abuse, it will just make it more accessible, and if you think the costs are high now, wait until health insurance gets a hold of it. Remember, thanks to Obamacare, EVERYONE MUST have health insurance, and anyone that's a user will get charged a higher premium to cover the risk - just like smokers already get. They WILL get their money, and anyone caught dealing on the black market so people can get things cheaper will still get the book thrown at them. You want proof? Look at the tobacco industry. Legalized drugs will get handled the same way. That fixes absolutely nothing.

You can think me ignorant, but I do know politics, government, and business well enough to tell you that your dream is nothing but a pipe dream because the power structure in the US is absolutely nothing like the Netherlands, and it never will be.

The United States was a pipe dream, once. State after state is legalizing marijuana as well. The criminals you despise so much won't be criminals much longer. :p

@Germanium: Sorry, I was busy typing up a response to Ducman69 - who I VERY frequently disagree with - and MisterClean, while you were posting more of your juvenile attacks.

Yeah, juvenile, and potheads don't take baths. :rolleyes:


You see, unlike you, they can actually present their case without being condescending and rude and hiding insults behind clever sentence structuring so that they can barely skirt the rules to avoid being banned.
You see, unlike you, I can actually be open minded about topics that don't have any affects on my personal life. You have a right to your opinion, I have a right to call your opinion stupid. Deal with it.

Oh, and you will most certainly not be my buddy.

I'm glad you pointed that out, I thought we were going to have a sleepover very soon. I'm not surprised you didn't get it but I was just telling you that your personal uniformed opinion about me doesn't matter...duh. You still don't have facts backing you up though, just your blind hate for anything you disagree with. That said just because you might have had someone close to you turn into a piece of shit, doesn't mean it was the drugs that made him a piece of shit, he probably was just a piece of shit to begin with and the drugs just highlighted it for you. Gave you something to blame instead of the person himself.

There's this thing called an "Ignore List" that's a feature on these forums. You're getting the dubious honor of being added to it. I prefer to discuss issues with mature and reasoned minds, not bandy veiled insults with those who are completely unreasonable.

And here I thought you had already put me on your ignore list, so umm, what happened there buddy? How did you even respond to my posts? I'm seriously curious. :)

Oh, and just as a reminder, PM's have a report post feature as well, so don't think about stalking and harassing me that way.

Stalking? Harassing? Do you just throw out words. Alligator! Tuna! As for the PM, it was true, and you know it. Good day little buddy. Actually ignore me this time though, seriously. You look foolish repeatedly telling me the same exact thing in different threads.
 

Naieve

Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
749
Here's an idea. If people want the War on Drugs to continue. How about they go about it legally and Amend the Constitution just like alcohol prohibition.

Do you know what changed between Alcohol Prohibition and the War on Drugs that allowed them to pass Drug Prohibition with a simple law instead of Amending the Constitution?

Absolutely nothing.

Welcome to America. Land of the Free. With the highest per capita prison population on earth.

Home of the Brave. Where our every government action is approved by shoving fear down the throats of our population until we acquiesce.

I'm ashamed of what we have become. Make no mistake. We are the British Empire we fought a Revolution to get away from.

Shame.
 
Top