Pros and Cons of social drugs

[Elok]

Touchy, aren't you? I believe you're also younger than me, so "kid" doesn't quite work.

[Kuciwalker]

that was almost Wiglaf-quality

[Kuciwalker]

Honestly, if you keep producing stuff that good I might have to take you off ignore.

[RGBVideo]

fap fap, trolls

[Elok]

Troll? I was merely teasing when I said you should be banned, though I admit that

A. it wasn't terribly funny and
B. I did suspect you'd overreact, though I didn't dream you'd go into full Donald Duck mode like that.

As to attacking you without cause, are you referring to the time you dissected one of my posts as a supposed exhibit of American stupidity, I retorted, and you threw a hissy-fit over the "insult"? Really, how can you be so thin-skinned after five years on 'Poly?

And how can you expect me to go away when you give me gold like that in response to a gentle prod? It boggles the mind to think how you might respond, should you be genuinely insulted at some point in the future. I'm almost afraid to try it, it might be like opening up the Lost Ark.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Elok
B. I did suspect you'd overreact, though I didn't dream you'd go into full Donald Duck mode like that.

You've trolled me for a year now. It's a lose-lose situation since the new mod policy in OTF means no intervention for trolling. If I don't react, I'll attract other trolls because I won't stand up for myself. I I react, it's a "lol I succeeded in my provocation"-circlejerk. The only succesful way to avoid a fanclub of stalkers who feel good from themselves by trolling is counter-trolling ad nauseum, KrazyHorse-style. And I'm not interested from that, so I try to avoid discussion in here. I started this thread in here because I knew we have some casual mj-smokers or ex-smokers. Perhaps I should've skipped the whole thread, would've left some more room for threads about funny videos and Paris Hilton on the front page

Also, your bulb was on when I wrote my reply. It's funny to note that you spent three full hours into thinking how to formulate a 3-paragraph "lol I'm not trolling but you're still a sucker for taking the bait" -reply which seems intellectual enough to satisfy your smart-sounding standards. I just came from my morning jog and decided to answer immediately after I saw your post. Writing this took 4 minutes

[Berzerker]

bipolarbear, we understand what causes lung cancer from smoking tobacco

the same is present in much higher quantities in the joints people smoke

it is all quite reasonably, scientifically

Not scientifically, just on paper... We wouldn't have to look hard to find a link between pot and cancer if what you said is true. Cemeteries are full of tobacco smokers, not pot smokers. If there was an undeniable link with a significant risk of cancer the politicians would be telling us in support of prohibition.

What pot smoke can do is induce bronchitis but I dont know if it leads to emphysema. Both pot and tobacco smoke contain tars and I believe these tars act like glue in the bloodstream leading to hardening of the arteries and strokes. If the cancer dont get ya, something else will...thats life...

[Verto]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by bipolarbear
) Even so the possibility of this happening only strengthens the argument for legalization.

That's what I was trying to point out - that any major risk from marijuana only exists BECAUSE it is illegal. Government regulation would remove that problem.

[Pekka]

Berz, yeah, plus pot smokers don't smoke in chain, 40 joints a day.

Then you take casual weekend smokers, this just isn't comparable to normal tobacco smoking anymore, unless you ALSO smoke tobacco.

[Elok]

??? Three hours? It took me about three minutes, tops. What are you smoking?

EDIT: And what's this about stalking you for a year? I believe I've had one conversation with you, and that was when you decided to act like a smeg in the politics thread. You're nucking futs.

[Arrian]

From a health standpoint, the best would probably be to use MJ, but not by smoking it. Fine baked goods

I see no reason for one to be illegal and the other legal. They're in the same basic category for me.

-Arrian

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Elok
...

And now we both know you're lying. This is what I meant when I used the word "kid", juvenile behaviour hidden behind adult language.

Originally posted by Arrian
From a health standpoint, the best would probably be to use MJ, but not by smoking it. Fine baked goods

I see no reason for one to be illegal and the other legal. They're in the same basic category for me.

-Arrian

Me neither. Playing devil's advocate here -- if one should be banned for health reasons or for "the good of the society", shouldn't it logically be alcohol, not MJ?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Not scientifically, just on paper... We wouldn't have to look hard to find a link between pot and cancer if what you said is true. Cemeteries are full of tobacco smokers, not pot smokers. If there was an undeniable link with a significant risk of cancer the politicians would be telling us in support of prohibition.

Umm, that is scientifically. One of the issue with experimental evidence relating to pot smoke is that so many pot smokers also smoke tabacco, and the current politcal climate makes it difficult to do experimental tests of broad marijuana use.

Science is about making obersvations and experiments, forming a hypothesis, and testing it, and having a theory. This theory, which is scientific, in the case of smoking predicts that on a per smoke basis muarijuana is worst than cigs.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Tjhis whole "pot never killed anyone!" spiel reeks of BS to me. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and if what the Doctor says is true (MJ contains most or all of the same carcinogens as cigarettes) then it would be pretty implausible for MJ not to cause cancer.

[Elok]

Get professional help, VJ. You're delusional. I don't mean that as an insult; it's the only conclusion I can come to based on your behavior. I have NOT been persecuting you, whatever you seem to think (I barely even know you, and I repeat, what I do know of you is only that you were immensely condescending in one thread a while back), and I did not take three hours to come up with a response. I visit the forum pretty frequently on slow days, so I suppose I may have appeared to stay on three hours from your perspective. Or something. Honestly, your irrationality has gone beyond amusing and into disturbing.