From what I have read and heard from people who have experience with such things, Isn't the pot these days many times stronger then the pot from the 60's because of advances in cultivation.
It also means it is a lot less harmful to your lungs if you smoke it. More potency=less smoke in your lungs to get the desired effects
From what I have read and heard from people who have experience with such things, Isn't the pot these days many times stronger then the pot from the 60's because of advances in cultivation.
True.
False. Higher quality pot has always existed, it's just easier to come by now.
Nope, not interested in being a lawyer. This doesn't mean that I won't become one, for I still could, but I would rather not. I'm hoping for some intelligence job. CIA, FBI, DIA. Thats what I believe I am interested in.
I'd just like to back track to Thaed making the point on the previous page about legalizing weed leading to an increase of use (which I agree with) and an increase in addiction (which I will call into question). I had been under impression that addiction to marijuana required greater exposure than tobacco. Can someone clean this up for me?
I'm hoping for some intelligence job. CIA, FBI, DIA
You best bet to get one of those jobs is to go to law school. Just look at how many FBI agents being hired these days that have law degrees, for example.
I'm pro legalization, just as long as you can't smoke in public or smoke when driving.
I'm not calling you out on anything here, because I agree with you completely. That last part, though, reminds me of a mini-rant.
I've heard a lot of comments from anti-legalization people along the lines of "if we legalize, people will smoke it anywhere." The episode of Bullshit! about the war on drugs had that one sheriff who said something like: if we legalize it, then a doctor could be smoking up while he's cutting you open.
I cannot get over the idiocy of this thinking. It's not like I would propose some kind of anarchic legalization. I'd treat it like we do cigarettes and alcohol; put some fairly strict rules on who can buy it, where it can be bought, and when it cannot be used, and you'll be fine. Really.
So, you can't drink and drive? Can't get stoned and drive either. Simple.
I don't know about this. Have there been any studies?
Not sure. Anecdotal only.
I'd just like to back track to Thaed making the point on the previous page about legalizing weed leading to an increase of use (which I agree with) and an increase in addiction (which I will call into question). I had been under impression that addiction to marijuana required greater exposure than tobacco. Can someone clean this up for me?
There's no physical dependence. Main problem comes from psychological addiction, which varies for people.
I thought withdrawal symptoms were defined as that you need physical dependence first. I guess you could be saying that it is a mental addiction instead of a physical one and we are creating the symptoms internally, but I don't think thats been seen.
I remember a case taken to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Supreme Court). It was argued similarly, that pot does not make you physically dependant and that tobacco and alcohol are legal, so why is pot illegal? The BVG's judgement was that pot will remain illegal. They argued that you don't drink alcohol primarily to intoxicate yourself, in contrast to pot.
My personal opinion on this: I, too, have seen many people destroy their lives with pot, and I have yet to see someone dealing with it in a way that does not drain his motivation for other things in some way. While I am aware that this is but anecdotal evidence, I still feel no need to change the status quo of it being illegal, as I don't feel that making pot illegal horribly oppresses anyone. If it were legalized, however, I probably just wouldn't care.
Arguments from both sides that I think are bullshit: "Reverse psychology": No, don't forbid it, then it's cool and all the kids will do it. Right. Even if that effect was all that significant, legalizing pot would still not remove the social stigma, thus the reverse psychology effect will not disappear. Furthermore, where's the line? If you regulate it like smoking, then it will still be illegal for teenagers, who are possibly the age group most likely to be influenced by "reverse psychology". "Physical damage": Yes, I want to be able to hurt myself however the hell I like. I'm a mountaineer... oh, I risk my life doing what I like. Should it be outlawed?
Comments
EDIT: Also, it just means that people smoke less.
I'm hoping for some intelligence job. CIA, FBI, DIA. Thats what I believe I am interested in.
Sorry I'm off topic.
I had been under impression that addiction to marijuana required greater exposure than tobacco. Can someone clean this up for me?
I think it would just cut down crime and such since it would eliminate the black market surrounding weed.
I've heard a lot of comments from anti-legalization people along the lines of "if we legalize, people will smoke it anywhere." The episode of Bullshit! about the war on drugs had that one sheriff who said something like: if we legalize it, then a doctor could be smoking up while he's cutting you open.
I cannot get over the idiocy of this thinking. It's not like I would propose some kind of anarchic legalization. I'd treat it like we do cigarettes and alcohol; put some fairly strict rules on who can buy it, where it can be bought, and when it cannot be used, and you'll be fine. Really.
So, you can't drink and drive? Can't get stoned and drive either. Simple.
I guess you could be saying that it is a mental addiction instead of a physical one and we are creating the symptoms internally, but I don't think thats been seen.
The BVG's judgement was that pot will remain illegal. They argued that you don't drink alcohol primarily to intoxicate yourself, in contrast to pot.
My personal opinion on this:
I, too, have seen many people destroy their lives with pot, and I have yet to see someone dealing with it in a way that does not drain his motivation for other things in some way. While I am aware that this is but anecdotal evidence, I still feel no need to change the status quo of it being illegal, as I don't feel that making pot illegal horribly oppresses anyone. If it were legalized, however, I probably just wouldn't care.
Arguments from both sides that I think are bullshit:
"Reverse psychology": No, don't forbid it, then it's cool and all the kids will do it. Right. Even if that effect was all that significant, legalizing pot would still not remove the social stigma, thus the reverse psychology effect will not disappear. Furthermore, where's the line? If you regulate it like smoking, then it will still be illegal for teenagers, who are possibly the age group most likely to be influenced by "reverse psychology".
"Physical damage": Yes, I want to be able to hurt myself however the hell I like. I'm a mountaineer... oh, I risk my life doing what I like. Should it be outlawed?