Marijuana: Another Senseless Overdose

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Willem
Sorry for bruising your moral sensibilities. I guess that means I'm a monster now does it?

Y"know what? You're the second person within a week to make an assumption about me, and it's getting tiresome. (The other guy assumed I hated "towel heads.")

I signed off with a "good day" precisely to indicate that I didn't think you were a monster, but that we disagreed and there was no way that gulf would be bridged, thus why waste anymore time with it all.

But right now I do think you're a dipstick for making assumptions about my thoughts in regards to you. And for using drugs, of course, but that's something we'll never agree on, so there.

GOOD DAY

Gatekeeper (just trying to make it clearer this time)

[Berzerker]

Calc -

Pot does kill brain cells. Other activities do kill brain cells as well but you cant discredit that pot does kill them. In addition Im not quite sure if you can see it that way either.

I already said inhaling any smoke kills brain cells, what part of that did you miss? But other conditions kill brain cells and smoking pot may lessen such conditions, so claiming pot kills brain cells in everyone is a generalisation requiring proof.

Cigarette smoking is habitual, where as pot smoking is recreational and not done per daily basis.

Habitual or addictive?

I'm not the only one who stated this (Che said 4-5 times, I wasnt sure of exact number anyway) so clearly Im not making this up

Who said you were?

Offended that your favorite hobby is not as safe as you thoguht it was?

Making false assumptions about me won't win you any brownie points. I played football in school, that wasn't very safe either. So what? I'm not offended by the probability that I will lose some brain cells if I smoke pot, I'm offended by people who think they have a mandate to decide how everyone else lives. I just wish they'd have the guts to try and enforce that mandate without hiding behind government.

Do what I do... Just smoke up and forgetta bout it~

So you were projecting.

Oh and brain cells dont die "all the time".

Yes they do.

Neuron cell's lifespan isnt like a cheek cells for example.

That's nice, and irrelevant.

Gatekeeper -

Re-read what I said: "I'm sure all you pot backers will hop on that airliner with the stoned pilot then, won't you?"

Where in there do I say you *have* to board a plane with a stoned pilot? Nowhere. Stop putting words in my mouth and stop twisting my thoughts to suit your needs.

Oh shut up. You told people who support re-legalising pot they should want to board a plane with a stoned pilot and I asked if I should also board a plane with a drunk pilot since I support legalised alcohol and you ******* dodged the question. You're trying to accuse us of hypocrisy and that boarding a plane with a stoned pilot is the action "required" to avoid the charge of hypocrisy. Figure it out...

What I was trying to communicate is simple: If pot is legalized, it's only a matter of time before some pilot, engineer or other person in a position of authority gets high while on the job.

What you communicated is your hypocrisy and a detachment from reality - banning pot doesn't prevent a pilot from flying under the influence. It isn't legal for pilots to fly drunk, but some do - explain that one Einstein.

With their judgment impaired, the odds of a disaster occurring multiplies.

And you believe millions of pot users should be punished for their actions. What impaired your judgement?

The odds of you being on the same plane as the stoned pilot as it plunges to the ground?

Less than being on a plane with a drunk pilot I imagine. If you support legalised alcohol, shouldn't you take your own challenge and board a plane with a drunk pilot?

The odds of you being on the passenger train with the zoned out engineer?

Or a drunk engineer? Why do you believe millions of people should be put in cages based on what a stoned engineer does? If the engineer is sober and kills someone, would you advocate punishing sober people too?

The odds of you being in the vehicle that's about to get struck head-on by an out-of-control semi with a blasted driver?

Hmm...many people are killed by truckers who fall asleep at the wheel, but thanks to people like you, it's illegal for them to use amphetamines to stay awake.

I don't know. Wanna take a chance? Legalize pot and let's find out the hard way.

I'm taking a chance just living in a world with people like you.

Furthermore, pick up the latest copy of USA Weekend. There's a study in there that indicates pot can, indeed, be a gateway drug for people.

Wtf does that mean? So if I use pot I'll want to use cocaine too? Quite possible, but not because the pot induced me to use cocaine. Wanna bet most people who used pot used alcohol or tobacco first?

The study involved twins — oftentimes the twin who ended up using pot went on to other drugs while the twin who stayed off drugs never got sucked into the vortex later in life.

And you think twins are identical in every way? Ever hear of environmental factors? Did it occur to you that people who use one drug are more likely to use other drugs because experimentation is part of their nature the same way athletes are more likely to play a variety of sports than people who don't like sports?

I don't know about you, Berzerker, but you really had to *twist* what I was saying to get it to fit your view on drug use. Furthermore, I didn't call anyone an idiot, thank you very much.

Read it and weep:

The idiots who claim marijuana doesn't cause the same types of illness as tabacco are just fooling themselves.

Nah, you didn't call anyone an idiot.

But since you've set the standard that millions of people should be punished because of what someone else has done, I'm sure you won't complain if you are put in a cage because someone else kills. Why, if you did complain, you'd be a hypocrite.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Alcohol figures into about 50% of vehicular deaths in the USA, but so what? We don't need anopther legal intoxicant. The drunks are doing fine reducing the excess population all on their own, they don't need any help from the potheads.


Oh yes you will, if you listen! Just recently in this area some stoned teens started blasting away at each other. It was so senseless. Two of the kids, a brother and sister were at a freinds house, smoking some of his weed, when they noticed that his cell phone looked a lot like one belonging to the brother. When the friend refused to surrender the device they went home and got pistols. Returning to his house the "friend" met them at the door shooting down the 17 year old brother. He finished the boy off with a shot to the back of the head then chased the 16 year old girl and did the same to her.
I had a patient who lost custody of her daughter because she went on a week long marijuana jag. The authorities were called when the neighbors complained that the 13 year old was just wandering around the neighborhood. Neglect is abuse.
In my college years I witnessed a number of fights among stoned neighbors.

No offence intended, but Doc, are you for real?

[Gatekeeper]

Berzerker:

FYI, I did *not* call you an idiot, although I am sorely tempted to do so at this very moment. To wit:

Read it and weep:

"The idiots who claim marijuana doesn't cause the same types of illness as tabacco are just fooling themselves."

Nah, you didn't call anyone an idiot.

Y'see that little part in bona fide quote marks? It was posted by Oerdin way back on Page 1 of this thread, prior to my arrival in this thread.

Now, get that joint smoke out of your eyes and apologize.

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Oh shut up. You told people who support re-legalising pot they should want to board a plane with a stoned pilot and I asked if I should also board a plane with a drunk pilot since I support legalised alcohol and you ******* dodged the question. You're trying to accuse us of hypocrisy and that boarding a plane with a stoned pilot is the action "required" to avoid the charge of hypocrisy. Figure it out...

What I was trying to communicate — repeatedly, I might add — is that if you make pot into just another legal drug available at nearly every store in town (much like tobacco or alcohol), you *do* increase the risk that someone will abuse it, and that someone could be the person in charge of an airplane, a train, a truck or some other critical component of modern society.

But, hey, I guess we can take it anyway we want to, huh?

What you communicated is your hypocrisy and a detachment from reality - banning pot doesn't prevent a pilot from flying under the influence. It isn't legal for pilots to fly drunk, but some do - explain that one Einstein.

Detachment from reality, huh? I beg to differ. I happen to believe that pot has a far more significant impact on one's perceptions when using it than, say, a shot of booze or a smelly cigarette. That's called a difference of opinion, pal, not a detachment from reality.

And you believe millions of pot users should be punished for their actions. What impaired your judgement?

Yep. I also advocate beheading pot users. The ultimate deterrent. (cue in barbarian roar here)

Less than being on a plane with a drunk pilot I imagine. If you support legalised alcohol, shouldn't you take your own challenge and board a plane with a drunk pilot?

I'm a non-drinker, so any argument involving my supposed support of legalized alcohol won't get much of a reply from me. BTW, did I also say somewhere in this thread that booze is cool? If so, please show me, Berz. I *trust* your attribution abilities with all my heart (straps on parachute).

The second part of your argument rests on a faulty base; namely, the assumption that what I was saying in my first post was a challenge. It wasn't, and I'm not going to repeat that again. It was an attempt on my part to get across a single point: Why increase the risk that you would be on a flight with a stoned pilot? Which is exactly what will happen, IMHO, if toking becomes as "acceptable" and legal as the sale of cigarettes. You say we have a risk as it is now with drunk pilots. True. But I refuse to live with adding yet another risk on top of that; namely, the possibility of stoned pilots.

Or a drunk engineer? Why do you believe millions of people should be put in cages based on what a stoned engineer does? If the engineer is sober and kills someone, would you advocate punishing sober people too?

Y'know what? I actually support drug treatment programs for addicts. But, hey, with your ability to peer into my soul, you've uncovered my dark, slithering monstrous secret. (insert requisite barbarian roar here)

Hmm...many people are killed by truckers who fall asleep at the wheel, but thanks to people like you, it's illegal for them to use amphetamines to stay awake.

Ah, so now we're going to veer off into the wonders of amphetamines, are we? Sorry, but I'm not taking the bait again. This is all about pot and the ramifications of making it legal (or keeping it illegal).

BTW, did anything ever come of those two U.S. airmen who are on trial for accidentally killing four Canadian soldiers over in Afghanistan? I remember something being mentioned of their use of — yep, you guessed it — amphetamines! Yes, yes, I know. State-sanctioned in this case to keep the men awake longer and supposedly more alert. Tell that to those dead Canadian soldiers.

I'm taking a chance just living in a world with people like you.

Oh my, Berz. Aren't you being a sweet boy tonight? Just for that, I think I'll really push for a "Behead Drug Users" bill in Congress, just to fulfill your *fantasies* about folks like me. Non-drinkers and free of drugs like pot, nicotine, cocaine, crack, heroin, and meth. We're a dangerous bunch all right.

Wtf does that mean? So if I use pot I'll want to use cocaine too? Quite possible, but not because the pot induced me to use cocaine. Wanna bet most people who used pot used alcohol or tobacco first?

Actually, the impression I got was that *all* those drugs are considered "gateway" drugs and that this study was merely a repudiation of those who claimed that pot *wasn't* a gateway drug. That claim, according to the study, is likely *not* true.

Pot could very well be a gateway drug, is the essence of the study.

Also, an article on the study appears in the Feb. 3, 2003, edition of TIME Magazine, *not* USA Weekend. I stated otherwise initially.

And you think twins are identical in every way? Ever hear of environmental factors? Did it occur to you that people who use one drug are more likely to use other drugs because experimentation is part of their nature the same way athletes are more likely to play a variety of sports than people who don't like sports?

According to the study, which appears in the Journal of the American Medical Association: "... By tracking 311 pairs of Australian twins (both fraternal and identical) in which one twin used marijuana before age 17 and the other did not, researchers have been able to show that early pot users are as much as five times more likely to use or abuse cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, sedatives or alcohol."

But here's the kicker, Berz: "... What makes this (study) so persuasive is that it factors in such things as economic background, family upbringing and even, in the case of identical twins, genetic makeup."

From the lead author of the study: "We actually were expecting that by using twins, we'd find that the association between early use and later abuse would disappear." — Michael Lynskey, Washington University - St. Louis, Mo.

The study also has the caveat that it doesn't have all the answers, but that it gives young people one more reason to heed the advice of their elders.

But since you've set the standard that millions of people should be punished because of what someone else has done, I'm sure you won't complain if you are put in a cage because someone else kills. Why, if you did complain, you'd be a hypocrite.

I'm going to use a tactic employed against me by another person who skipped over a chunk of what I'd written in another thread: "BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. What's your point?"

Gatekeeper

[ThePlagueRat]

Quiet! Now, stop harassing and then the two of you smoke a peace pipe!

[Willem]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


Y"know what? You're the second person within a week to make an assumption about me, and it's getting tiresome. (The other guy assumed I hated "towel heads.")

Maybe it's the way you express yourself. Your original post seemed loaded with moral condemnation to me, I distinctly thought I was being prejudged.

[Evil Knevil]

Rant, rant rant.

Anyway your brain shrinks as you get older. No questions about that.
THC doesn't directly kill them off, while Alcohol does. Nicotine doesn't kill them either, nor does LSD or Heroin.

Speed, MDMA and Cocaine may, I repeat, may damage brain cells. In MDMA its likely that it damages the raphe --> cortex serotonin pathways.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper

Detachment from reality, huh? I beg to differ. I happen to believe that pot has a far more significant impact on one's perceptions when using it than, say, a shot of booze or a smelly cigarette. That's called a difference of opinion, pal, not a detachment from reality.

Yes it is. Impairment with marijuana is not nearly as severe as with alchohol. Someone can be higher than a kite and you might never even notice. The same can't be said for someone who's pissed to the gills.

The second part of your argument rests on a faulty base; namely, the assumption that what I was saying in my first post was a challenge. It wasn't, and I'm not going to repeat that again. It was an attempt on my part to get across a single point: Why increase the risk that you would be on a flight with a stoned pilot? Which is exactly what will happen, IMHO, if toking becomes as "acceptable" and legal as the sale of cigarettes. You say we have a risk as it is now with drunk pilots. True. But I refuse to live with adding yet another risk on top of that; namely, the possibility of stoned pilots.

Why are you so obsessed with this notion. Do you have such a poor opinion of pilots that you think they're all going to get run out and get high if they can? Frankly I think it's a very silly argument for continuing the current policy. Can't you come up with something better?

And believe me, legalization won't make much of a difference in terms of accessability, it's all over the place. If a pilot wanted some right now, they'd have no trouble getting it. Trying to enforce the current laws is not only futile, but a colossal waste of taxpayer's money.

But here's the kicker, Berz: "... What makes this (study) so persuasive is that it factors in such things as economic background, family upbringing and even, in the case of identical twins, genetic makeup."

What it no doubt doesn't factor in is the person's predisposition to experiment with drugs, any drugs, in the first place.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The Department of Transportation credits marijuana as the cause of about 6% of highway fatalities in the USA.

That's in part because any accident where one driver was using marijuana is recorded as being caused by marijuana. The DoT doesn't know if it really was the cause or if the non-stoned driver made an error, or if the stoned driver would have made an error even if not stoned.

Tests on lab animals do indeed support the statement that marijuana smoke is about ten times more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke. Smoking 4 jays/day would be the equivalent of smoking 2 packs/day. A 40 pack year smoking history is definitely considered a cancer risk. I'm certain that there are at least a few people around who smoke that much marijuana, 4 jays/day over the period of 2 or more decades needed to induce a tumor.

The carcinogenic aspects of marijuana shouldn't make it illegal. Plenty of legal things can cause cancer, from tobacco to, well, just about anything. I'm willing to bet that sitting in front of a computer isn't very healthy in the long term.

Alcohol figures into about 50% of vehicular deaths in the USA, but so what? We don't need anopther legal intoxicant. The drunks are doing fine reducing the excess population all on their own, they don't need any help from the potheads.

Plenty of people can consume alcohol responsibly, either in their homes, with a designated driver, or using a taxi or public transit to get home. There's no reason to sentence them to jail time simply because they want to drink. Similarly, there is no reason to sentence other adults to jail time simply because they want to smoke. You have to consider whether the methods used to maintain the status quo are better or worse than the consequences. Arresting over 700,000 people a year is not better than minding our own business.

Oh yes you will, if you listen! Just recently in this area some stoned teens started blasting away at each other. It was so senseless. Two of the kids, a brother and sister were at a freinds house, smoking some of his weed, when they noticed that his cell phone looked a lot like one belonging to the brother. When the friend refused to surrender the device they went home and got pistols. Returning to his house the "friend" met them at the door shooting down the 17 year old brother. He finished the boy off with a shot to the back of the head then chased the 16 year old girl and did the same to her.

I had a patient who lost custody of her daughter because she went on a week long marijuana jag. The authorities were called when the neighbors complained that the 13 year old was just wandering around the neighborhood. Neglect is abuse.

In my college years I witnessed a number of fights among stoned neighbors.

Plenty of people shoot each other for no reason all the time. How many hundreds of people are killed every year in the United States? An anecdote of one such shooting (even a double homocide) is not justification for maintaining the statutes.

Likewise, fights between college students happen with or without weed. Right now I'm in college, and I can honestly say that stoned people are a damned sight better behaved than drunk people. But since you're as anti-alcohol as you are anti-marijuana, there's no sense in telling you that.

Irresponsible parents are a problem with marijuana. But if the worst thing you can say about it is that it makes people lazy and inconsiderate, then that's hardly a case for criminalization.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Fascinating! Hell, let's just legalize everything and put our faith that any high, stoned or drunk person will be caught before they cause a damn disaster.

So you're advocating alcohol prohibition too?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Detachment from reality, huh? I beg to differ. I happen to believe that pot has a far more significant impact on one's perceptions when using it than, say, a shot of booze or a smelly cigarette. That's called a difference of opinion, pal, not a detachment from reality.

You're comparing different quantities of drugs. One shot versus a whole joint. I can do that too. I'd trust someone who had one puff of marijunana over someone who drank a six pack.

Question: how many Dutch airline pilots fly stoned?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Felch X


That's in part because any accident where one driver was using marijuana is recorded as being caused by marijuana. The DoT doesn't know if it really was the cause or if the non-stoned driver made an error, or if the stoned driver would have made an error even if not stoned.

Not only that, but if the driver is stoned and drunk, it is still recorded as being caused by marijuana.

[chequita guevara]

If you're stoned and drunk, I doubt you can find the wheel, let alone drive. The combination of alcohol and pot is much more powerful than simply an addition of the two effects.

[Caligastia]

Being drunk, or being drunk and stoned, affects your driving a lot more than just being stoned. Believe me, I know.