Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Too much discussion about this has focused only on whether it should be legal or not. I thought maybe we could stand a thread about the substance itself. Have you ever used it? Do you still use it? How has it impacted the culture where you live? Do you think its effects are positive, negative, neutral?

Personally, I like the stuff. Its pretty tolerated where I live (lots of old hippies who passed on the habit to their kids) and i've never felt like anyone was worse off for that fact.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Too much discussion about this has focused only on whether it should be legal or not. I thought maybe we could stand a thread about the substance itself. Have you ever used it? Do you still use it? How has it impacted the culture where you live? Do you think its effects are positive, negative, neutral?

Personally, I like the stuff. Its pretty tolerated where I live (lots of old hippies who passed on the habit to their kids) and i've never felt like anyone was worse off for that fact. I think that it enhances certain senses and thought patterns so it's actually a benefit to people who use it responsibly. The way it has impacted my community is that it's everyones side hustle. The youth around here have responded to the lack of jobs by serving trees and it's really quite prevalent. I'd say that you'd have an easier time finding mj around here than quality pipe tobacco. That's a pro but the negative impact is that practice as a drug dealer is practice as a drug dealer and the bridge to dangerous drugs is to close for comfort. That sucks but what can ya do?

I don't think i'd ever deal in it but consuming it is no problem for me. Really I feel like i've had much improved quality of life (while sober) after starting to use it.

People on weed are more laid back and dont break the law as much as drunk people. Drunk people do crazy shit all the time, pot heads dont.

I agree... I know people who totally messed up their life with binge drinking but I haven't seen any who did so from pot alone (well, aside from getting arrested).

Tried it, was fun, smoked it regularly when I was younger, don't do it any more, got nothing against its usage or legality.

Never had any real interest.

I smoked pot from about 1975 to 1985. Haven't touched it since. Is it good? No. I do believe it's effects can be harmful, but I think the cost to society of keeping it illegal are worse. We should legalize it.

Smoke until you choke is my moto.

Very negative, a woman I loved more than anything on earth, become increasingly paranoid and irrational through continued use. She used it to self medicate over some issues she had from her past. In the end it destroyed our relationship. She lied over use, nah, longterm heavy Pot use is more than just a gateway drug.

Originally posted by ThAnus_ofTITass
Very negative, a woman I loved more than anything on earth, become increasingly paranoid and irrational through continued use. She used it to self medicate over some issues she had from her past. In the end it destroyed our relationship. She lied over use, nah, longterm heavy Pot use is more than just a gateway drug.


Not really, it really depends on the person. No one is the same, if you have negative effects from anything, stop doing whatever it is that you are doing. This woman would most likely have done the same thing to you even if she wasn't toking on a blunt. No offense intended brah.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I agree... I know people who totally messed up their life with binge drinking but I haven't seen any who did so from pot alone (well, aside from getting arrested). Quitting smoking removes the fear of getting arrested which would automatically remove plenty of subconscious anxieties. Stress removal is probably highest on the list of things that do improve quality of life. I wonder if usage could be done out in the open would it benefit the community rather than seclude the partakers as outlaws.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't think i'd ever deal in it but consuming it is no problem for me. Really I feel like i've had much improved quality of life (while sober) after starting to use it. Sometimes I wonder if the term sober should even apply to a drug that doesn't leave you drunk even if you try to overdose. You know what I mean. I'm not saying that smoking some good won't leave you wobbly, but if you're familiar with the term "blow my buzz" the ability to quickly straighten up and perform normally is appreciated by smokers that get into serious situations like being pulled over. If you're not sober when you get pulled you'll fail a sobriety test. See what I'm saying? I think mj just got heaped in with other drugs and their negative terminology. I don't even tell people that I'm high cause they associate that with being wasted which I rarely ever am. ( That's only every month or two as well ) I tell people I'm lifted when I've been smoking cause I feel somewhat enlightened. I notice things that seemed insignificant before and analyze things deeper just for fun. Sometimes I can be quite the philosopher when I'm just mellowing at home. I don't really care for the damage I'm doing to my lungs but a vaporizer should take that risk out of the equation.

What I want to know is, does ceasing smoking mj embracing sobriety any more than ceasing tobacco or coffee? I ask because sobriety is a badge to some people that they use to boost their ego.
I can tell that's not what you're doing but the people who do are too self-righteous to me. Do they deserve to be able to equate smokers
to drinkers?

I've never tried it. But I have no problem with it.

I've only tried it once or twice although I've taken other drugs more frequently (and occasionally still do)...Can't say I'm bothered by it and it's not even prevalent in my social circles at all...

It used to be though...I used to have friends who, for them, it was a daily thing and it pretty much took over their lives...I had one friend who was stoned from the moment he got up til the moment he went to sleep (he prepared a bong ready so he could smoke it the moment he woke in the morning)...It got to the point where we was so wrecked that I'd go up to his in the evening and he sit there slumped over sideways on his sofa and not say a word the entire night while I played the playstation...When I'd leave he'd mutter for me to lock the door from the outside and post the keys through the letter box because he was so stoned he couldn't be bothered getting up to do it himself....Odd now that he's a reasonably successful DJ and music producer.

So you'd say it turned out fine for him?

One my housemates smoked it while I was at university, I didn't although one of his friends put a bong up to my face and blasted me with it. I didn't like the smell, too sickly sweet- the house was reeking for days afterwards.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So you'd say it turned out fine for him?

He probably grew out of it...As most people do.

Originally posted by jaden101
He probably grew out of it...As most people do.
Yeah, I agree. I don't see too many people who make it a permanent part of their lives.

I'm high as we speak.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I'm high as we speak.

Tell us when you are not high.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Have you ever used it?

yes

Originally posted by King Kandy
Do you still use it?

yes

Originally posted by King Kandy
How has it impacted the culture where you live?

There is a fairly well represented pot culture in most canadian cities. Stores dedicated to paraphanaila and the like are common even in reletively small towns, and almost 99% of the time, it is ok to smoke outside. Maybe that is an exageration, I just moved away from a town of ~100 000, pretty conservative, and you'd get busted if you were smoking, but like, parks and stuff were normally safe. Big cities, you can basically smoke on the streets, and cops have better things to do than bother you, as long as you aren't doing anything to disrupt people. I'm not worldly, so I don't know how much this differs from other places.

Nationally, the legalization/decriminalization debate comes around now and again, so it is in the news. There is a "marijuana party" that runs in federal elections, and they get press.

Obviously it is still illegal, and thus crime surrounds the industry. There are lots of "mom and pop" operations at all levels though, so its not all supporting organized crime, or not necessarily the majority of it. That being said, one of the major impacts on culture is through crime.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Do you think its effects are positive, negative, neutral?

it can be all. like personally, I would have more money if I didn't smoke, but overall, I'd say it has been positive, for me at least. I mean, I figure I'm doing well

Originally posted by inimalist
There is a fairly well represented pot culture in most canadian cities. Stores dedicated to paraphanaila and the like are common even in reletively small towns, and almost 99% of the time, it is ok to smoke outside. Maybe that is an exageration, I just moved away from a town of ~100 000, pretty conservative, and you'd get busted if you were smoking, but like, parks and stuff were normally safe. Big cities, you can basically smoke on the streets, and cops have better things to do than bother you, as long as you aren't doing anything to disrupt people. I'm not worldly, so I don't know how much this differs from other places.

Nationally, the legalization/decriminalization debate comes around now and again, so it is in the news. There is a "marijuana party" that runs in federal elections, and they get press.

Obviously it is still illegal, and thus crime surrounds the industry. There are lots of "mom and pop" operations at all levels though, so its not all supporting organized crime, or not necessarily the majority of it. That being said, one of the major impacts on culture is through crime.
Hah, there are plenty of head shops in the US too but you'd be wise not to smoke in public in a lot of cities (varies from place to place).

I know what you're saying with the crime aspect. One of the things people say where I live is that you should never smoke anything that wasn't grown by someone you know. Obviously that's not going to happen for most people, but getting in on the small businesses is usually the best way to do it imo.

have used, still do from time to time. only acquire it from hippie communes of friends of mine who grow it themselves so as to avoid supporting drugdealers and their criminal networks.

huh, you guys must know way more or bigger time growers than I do.

lol, I don't know what its like elsewhere, but in Canada, there are mom and pops that get as big, if not bigger than major crime organizations, so a lot of the time traditional models of organized crime don't fit our marijuana growing system. Like, where I used to live in Southern Ontario, there were Vietnamese families that would grow sort of "low end" hydroponics in homes they bought (fish-weed), and that was connected directly to larger criminal organizations, but at the same time, individuals or groups who specialize in pot growing, and only commit other crimes related to that, make up potentially a majority of our weed. For instance, I used to sling some high grade stuff, and tbh I didn't know exactly where it was coming from, but I'd be willing to put money on it not being from bikers or other crime organizations. Maybe this is the exact same as the "hippie commune" thing 753 was talking about, but Ive known a lot of people in this same position, or in the opposite (they clearly bought from local gangsters). Maybe it is a matter of quantity as well, because any "hippie" growers I have met havn't had the ability to supply enough pot for even the limited clientel I had, and certainly not for the person who supplied me. My experience is that, the higher the grade of weed, the less likely it is to be supporting traditional organized crime, and that the people who deal with the high grade stuff are way less likely to be involved with "gangsters" and the like anyways... you know, chill potheads and all that.

Misha Glenny has done some work for the BBC on the BC pot industry, and it says sort of the same thing, so I tend to think my suspiscions are correct, but I can't say I know for sure.

that being said, stuff has totally changed now that I am in winnipeg. I'm stuck buying stuff of the street from people who gladly talk about enforcing their "turf" and other crap.

alcohol is tied to violence everywhere, specially domestic violence and youth violence. your idillic vision of southern europeans drinking habits is far too optimistic, although countries like russia and england reallydo have worse than average levels of chronic binge alcoholism.

I never take interest in it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't mind a nanny state that can cite valid studies taking an interest in the health of citizens via taxes and PSAs. Certainly the primary purpose of taxes on legalized drugs should be to mitigate problems associated with them (but then I'm a big fan of public option health care).


then the first thing they should ban is tobacco and unhealthy food. These things cause a massive burden on the health system.

Weed probably helps people, definitely brings stress down.

by that logic, the first thing we should ban are cars

replacing private with public transportation is a pretty good idea indeed.

if you insist, Komrad

Originally posted by inimalist
by that logic, the first thing we should ban are cars

I was just reading something that pointed out we could save thousands of lives every year by just making it illegal to drive over 5mph.

Originally posted by inimalist
if you insist, Komrad I do

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was just reading something that pointed out we could save thousands of lives every year by just making it illegal to drive over 5mph.

I rarely attempt to use comparisons of marijuana to other, more dangerous things, simply because, as illustrated above, the logical end result is, in fact, an increase of government intervention into people's lives. While I do support the idea that someone who does something stupid deserves to be treated for any injury they might incur, I really don't think that in turn justifies the state telling people they can't do things that might lead to injury.

Your point is perfect in terms of this example. If we argue that the role of the state is to prevent people from hurting themselves, it follows that driving over 5mph is an excess, not a liberty people should have due to personal freedom and all that.

that is a funny stat though, where did you find it?

Originally posted by 753
I do

even Mussolini couldn't make the trains run on time

would this cover all transportation? like, land, sea and air? are all forms of private transportation illegal, or only motorized kinds?

EDIT: what about freight or shipping? is that now state run as well, or do corporations get to violate the law and have private trucks?

Originally posted by inimalist
I rarely attempt to use comparisons of marijuana to other, more dangerous things, simply because, as illustrated above, the logical end result is, in fact, an increase of government intervention into people's lives. While I do support the idea that someone who does something stupid deserves to be treated for any injury they might incur, I really don't think that in turn justifies the state telling people they can't do things that might lead to injury.

Your point is perfect in terms of this example. If we argue that the role of the state is to prevent people from hurting themselves, it follows that driving over 5mph is an excess, not a liberty people should have due to personal freedom and all that.

Only if we say that the state must protect people from harm at all costs. It's not inconsistent to say that safety and liberty are both good.

Originally posted by inimalist
that is a funny stat though, where did you find it?

Skeptical Inquirer article on global warming.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/lets_keep_our_cool_about_global_warming/

Originally posted by inimalist

even Mussolini couldn't make the trains run on time

would this cover all transportation? like, land, sea and air? are all forms of private transportation illegal, or only motorized kinds?

EDIT: what about freight or shipping? is that now state run as well, or do corporations get to violate the law and have private trucks? You're mistaking what I said. Private transportation of people, as in cars, needs to be replaced with public, as in collective, transportation, such as trains, etc. Likewise, cargo transportation should be steered towards the least impacting forms on the environment and public health. None of this requires a state monopoly of transportation.

Originally posted by 753
You're mistaking what I said. Private transportation of people, as in cars, needs to be replaced with public, as in collective, transportation, such as trains, etc. Likewise, cargo transportation should be steered towards the least impacting forms on the environment and public health. None of this requires a state monopoly of transportation.

so, I could still own a car if I wanted to take it somewhere?

(truth be told, you will get no argument from me in terms of making public transportation efficent enough to provide for people's day to day needs, I bus everywhere)

Originally posted by inimalist

Your point is perfect in terms of this example. If we argue that the role of the state is to prevent people from hurting themselves, it follows that driving over 5mph is an excess, not a liberty people should have due to personal freedom and all that.

if car accidents did not harm anyone other than the driver, I'd agree the state would have no place restricting the driver's behavior, but they don't so speed limits are reasonable. the reason they aren't capped at 5 is a practical one, as it would render traffic impossible, not amatter of a personal driving liberty.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Only if we say that the state must protect people from harm at all costs. It's not inconsistent to say that safety and liberty are both good.


I don't disagree, however, at least in my opinion, banning things like smoking or fast/unhealthy food goes way too far in the direction of a nanny state.

Hell, if we apply the idea of a "state enforced diet" to my own situation, there should be people coming to my house and force feeding me, because my BMI is very low and I am clinically underweight. (not that I take to much pride in my slenderness, just that it isn't anyone else's business)

Originally posted by 753
if car accidents did not harm anyone other than the driver, I'd agree the state would have no place restricting the driver's behavior, but they don't so speed limits are reasonable. the reason they aren't capped at 5 is a practical one, as it would render traffic impossible, not amatter of a personal driving liberty.

I don't think liberty has nothing to do with it, and I tend to interpret things in terms of personal liberty

Originally posted by inimalist
so, I could still own a car if I wanted to take it somewhere?

(truth be told, you will get no argument from me in terms of making public transportation efficent enough to provide for people's day to day needs, I bus everywhere) taking my country for instance, in order to make the transition happen, people would need to be encouraged to use public transportation (which would have to be improved in a lot of cities) and discouraged to use cars. compulsory extinction of the automobile industry and prohibition of car use would be the most extreme and obvious ways to acomplish this. But if more subtles methods, like taxes, can achieve a majoritary transition that solves the problems caused by massive car use (and they probably can) then they should be preferred over prohibition. However, I ultimately believe the social and environmental benefits of the transition outweight the particular individual liberties to manufacture, sell, own and use cars. If there was no other way of curbing the effects of the current model of transportation, then I would support prohibition.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't disagree, however, at least in my opinion, banning things like smoking or fast/unhealthy food goes way too far in the direction of a nanny state.

Hell, if we apply the idea of a "state enforced diet" to my own situation, there should be people coming to my house and force feeding me, because my BMI is very low and I am clinically underweight. (not that I take to much pride in my slenderness, just that it isn't anyone else's business)



I don't think liberty has nothing to do with it, and I tend to interpret things in terms of personal liberty I guess I didnt understand what you posted.

But my point is this: using the smoking ban example you gave, it's unnacceptable for the government to keep people from smoking, but banning smoking in public spaces is reasonable, as second-hand smoke is harmful.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Too much discussion about this has focused only on whether it should be legal or not. I thought maybe we could stand a thread about the substance itself. Have you ever used it? Do you still use it? How has it impacted the culture where you live? Do you think its effects are positive, negative, neutral?

Personally, I like the stuff. Its pretty tolerated where I live (lots of old hippies who passed on the habit to their kids) and i've never felt like anyone was worse off for that fact.

Marijuana is a drug I do quite frequently. Rogue Jedi knows that quite well . But honestly, I don't think it should be legalized.

Let me answer your questions:


Have you ever used it?/ Do you still use it?- Yes. Quite frequently
How has it impacted the culture where you live?- I would not know. But just about everyone I go to school with smokes, so....
Do you think its effects are positive, negative, neutral?- Here is the kicker.
Marijuana poses virtually no threat to one's physical health. It does not pose the same threats as Tobacco (such as lung cancer, emphysema, and such), and scientists have many times debunked the "kills brain cells" myth. Mental health however, is where shit gets tricky. While Marijuana definitely doesn't pose the threat of a physical addiction, trust me, the psychological addiction can be extremely trying individuals. It takes good will to be able to do weed moderately.
The reason I don't believe Marijuana should be legalized on a mainstream market is because of the extremely lethargic and sedentary lifestyle it would bring upon the citizens. While yes, many people do smoke, I feel as if it's illegality is what prevents it from being tremendously abused

But, what evidence is there that the population would be hindered by it being legal? In the netherlands, for instance, I see no indication of such an effect taking place.

I used to be a pot head and i still partake in the occasional spliff. I think Pot is incredibly overrated. Not only for how it's demonized but also for it's popularity. I always preferred uppers and psychedelics, myself. Pot just makes me stupid and lazy. The best times i've had while using pot came while playing guitar or just relaxing to a good CD. For me, if i'm going to make the effort to get high i prefer a drug that is going to change my perspective or give me a sense of keener focus and energy.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I used to be a pot head and i still partake in the occasional spliff. I think Pot is incredibly overrated. Not only for how it's demonized but also for it's popularity. I always preferred uppers and psychedelics, myself. Pot just makes me stupid and lazy. The best times i've had while using pot came while playing guitar or just relaxing to a good CD. For me, if i'm going to make the effort to get high i prefer a drug that is going to change my perspective or give me a sense of keener focus and energy.

I find this quite intriguing. I am exactly the opposite. I try to avoid psychedelics and other similar drugs as much as possible. I feel that if the most enjoyable high is one in which you feel the effects, but still have control over your mind. I feel that if I use a mind-alterer, that I will immediately panic (even subconsciously), and will hallucinate my worst fears

Weed's overrated.

That aside, I say legalize, only because the US is losing the "drug war", and it's an unnescesarry waste of resources. Legalize it and put all that extra money into something more meaningful.

Originally posted by The Nuul
People on weed are more laid back and dont break the law as much as drunk people. Drunk people do crazy shit all the time, pot heads dont.
I beg to differ.

I have actually been in a comparable situation to that of jaden's friend. I didn't sit at home all day but I was pretty much continuously stoned. Which eventually lead me to become somewhat paranoid and depressed. It didn't last long enough for it to ruin my life but I do know that the consequences of regular usage can be a lot more serious than a lot of people think. That being said, I definitely can't judge anyone for smoking pot and I don't even care if you do.

Tried it, was horrible. Tried it again, was horrible again.

I'm not interested in any drugs anymore really, maybe some caffeine in my soda.

Originally posted by Slay
I beg to differ.

I have actually been in a comparable situation to that of jaden's friend. I didn't sit at home all day but I was pretty much continuously stoned. Which eventually lead me to become somewhat paranoid and depressed. It didn't last long enough for it to ruin my life but I do know that the consequences of regular usage can be a lot more serious than a lot of people think. That being said, I definitely can't judge anyone for smoking pot and I don't even care if you do. but he's right that weed doesn't induce agressive behavior. you're right that not everyone is fit to do drugs though

Originally posted by Bardock42
Tried it, was horrible. Tried it again, was horrible again.

I'm not interested in any drugs anymore really, maybe some caffeine in my soda.

That reminds me, a good friend of mine (he's a friend of mine on Facebook, Bards, so I can point you to him, if you'd like) tried weed for his first time in Holland (western portion of the Netherlands). They gave him like a "book" of sorts at his hotel and he tried white widow as his very first weed.


He said it made him so high that he was hallucinating and was scared shitless. He thought he OD'd or something.

The way he told the story was hilarious and I laughed at him. Weed newbz: getting their first high and a shitload of white widow.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
For me, if i'm going to make the effort to get high i prefer a drug that is going to change my perspective or give me a sense of keener focus and energy. 'Shrooms.

Originally posted by Mindship
'Shrooms.

Way too dangerous. Pot is so much safer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Way too dangerous. Pot is so much safer.
In terms of the toxicity, there are several kinds of psilocybins that are about the same as marijuana.

Originally posted by King Kandy
In terms of the toxicity, there are several kinds of psilocybins that are about the same as marijuana.

That is true, but unless you grow it yourself, you don't always know what you are getting. To be honest, if it was all legalized, we would all be safer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Way too dangerous. Pot is so much safer. They can be. But the key to a safe trip, like any real trip, is preparation.

Originally posted by King Kandy
In terms of the toxicity, there are several kinds of psilocybins that are about the same as marijuana.

Psylocybin itself, like pure mdma, lsd or thc, is so benign that you would have to specifically set out to OD on it in order for it to harm you seriously.

Eating it as mushrooms, you are going to be sooooooo high that you are incapable of injesting fatal amounts. I'm not sure about other chemicals in some mushrooms, and I am not saying in any way that taking irresponsibly large doses of hallucinogens is healthy (especially in terms of mental health).

Pot, on the other hand, does actually have some fairly serious physiological effects. Inhaling smoke is never good, it has a very high tar content, and is much more likely to be abused than are traditional psychadellics (you build up a tollorance to shrooms/lsd so fast it would be difficult to have a habit of it longer than a month or two, not considering the stress that would put on your psyche)

Originally posted by inimalist
Psylocybin itself, like pure mdma, lsd or thc, is so benign that you would have to specifically set out to OD on it in order for it to harm you seriously.

Eating it as mushrooms, you are going to be sooooooo high that you are incapable of injesting fatal amounts. I'm not sure about other chemicals in some mushrooms, and I am not saying in any way that taking irresponsibly large doses of hallucinogens is healthy (especially in terms of mental health).

Pot, on the other hand, does actually have some fairly serious physiological effects. Inhaling smoke is never good, it has a very high tar content, and is much more likely to be abused than are traditional psychadellics (you build up a tollorance to shrooms/lsd so fast it would be difficult to have a habit of it longer than a month or two, not considering the stress that would put on your psyche)

With pot, moderation is the key. However, not all mushrooms are safe, and there is always a risk of parasites.

Well I am about to willingly put myself in the line of fire and act as a test subject. Well, here I go.....

Originally posted by inimalist
Psylocybin itself, like pure mdma, lsd or thc, is so benign that you would have to specifically set out to OD on it in order for it to harm you seriously.

Eating it as mushrooms, you are going to be sooooooo high that you are incapable of injesting fatal amounts. I'm not sure about other chemicals in some mushrooms, and I am not saying in any way that taking irresponsibly large doses of hallucinogens is healthy (especially in terms of mental health).

Pot, on the other hand, does actually have some fairly serious physiological effects. Inhaling smoke is never good, it has a very high tar content, and is much more likely to be abused than are traditional psychadellics (you build up a tollorance to shrooms/lsd so fast it would be difficult to have a habit of it longer than a month or two, not considering the stress that would put on your psyche)
Source on that last bit? Leary, Kesey, many of the countercultural figures from that period, used it for years almost religiously and were still going strong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is true, but unless you grow it yourself, you don't always know what you are getting. To be honest, if it was all legalized, we would all be safer.
Well, I definitely have to agree with you that legalizing it would be safer, but, as long as you do have proper training in identification, I would not say they are "way too dangerous" to try under any circumstances.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Source on that last bit? Leary, Kesey, many of the countercultural figures from that period, used it for years almost religiously and were still going strong.

does "drug culture" count as a reference? personal experience?

I don't have a study I can point to, not too much research is aimed at "how to get high most effectively", however, the tolorance build up is among some of the reasons that psychadellics are considered to have almost no addictive potential.

actually...

Levinthal C. (2005) Drugs, Behavior, and Modern Society (4th Ed). Pearson Education, Inc.

pg. 143



One of the few text books I didn't sell

We need to keep marijuana illegal because it's a sin.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
We need to keep marijuana illegal because it's a sin. this post is a sin

Originally posted by dadudemon
That reminds me, a good friend of mine (he's a friend of mine on Facebook, Bards, so I can point you to him, if you'd like) tried weed for his first time in Holland (western portion of the Netherlands). They gave him like a "book" of sorts at his hotel and he tried white widow as his very first weed.


He said it made him so high that he was hallucinating and was scared shitless. He thought he OD'd or something.

The way he told the story was hilarious and I laughed at him. Weed newbz: getting their first high and a shitload of white widow.
White widow isn't that hardcore. It's considered the Marlboro of weed around here. Furthermore, weed very rarely gets you high, I know white widow doesn't. It definitely doesn't make you hallucinate, never happened to me or anyone I've ever smoked with. Also, names for weed like white widow, K2 or California Wondertree are a farce.

Originally posted by linkownsyousobs
this post is a sin

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
We need to keep marijuana illegal because it's a sin.

It sucks to be a Christian.

Someone must have been smokin something writing that book of Revelations though.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Someone must have been smokin something writing that book of Revelations though.

More like eating mushrooms.

Originally posted by Slay
White widow isn't that hardcore. It's considered the Marlboro of weed around here. Furthermore, weed very rarely gets you high, I know white widow doesn't. It definitely doesn't make you hallucinate, never happened to me or anyone I've ever smoked with. Also, names for weed like white widow, K2 or California Wondertree are a farce.
I don't know what you're saying. You don't need to hallucinate to be "high", i've never heard the word used that way by smokers in my life. That would be "tripping". All weed differs by location but the white widow in amsterdam was found to have ~19% THC which is exceptionally high.

Originally posted by inimalist
does "drug culture" count as a reference? personal experience?

I don't have a study I can point to, not too much research is aimed at "how to get high most effectively", however, the tolorance build up is among some of the reasons that psychadellics are considered to have almost no addictive potential.

actually...

Levinthal C. (2005) Drugs, Behavior, and Modern Society (4th Ed). Pearson Education, Inc.

pg. 143



One of the few text books I didn't sell
But, many people have made it a point to trip on LSD continuously for a multiple day span. Since one use can last for eight hours or more, you'd only need like nine doses for a 3-day trip, if you stayed up 24/7. I don't see how it could be possible to build a tolerance to the point of it being completely ineffective that fast, when many people have taken far more than nine doses over their usage.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't know what you're saying. You don't need to hallucinate to be "high", i've never heard the word used that way by smokers in my life. That would be "tripping". All weed differs by location but the white widow in amsterdam was found to have ~19% THC which is exceptionally high.
Weed doesn't make you hallucinate period. You're right, my usage of the word high was a bit off there, but for the record most types of weed don't get you high, hasj (hach?) does. I happen to be from Holland and get most of my weed from the ''coffee-shops'', and never have I hallucinated from weed and neither has any of my friends. What still stands is that names like White Widow basically have no meaning. You've got types of weed like haze, which are the stronger types of weed etc. But really, around here at least, one shop's White Widow is another shops K2.

Edit: My usage of the word high wasn't off as dadudemon said something about his friend getting 'so high'. Weed very rarely gets you high, it gets you stoned, which are in fact two completely different experiences. The only weed I've ever had that got me high was some Purple Haze I got in Amsterdam.

Originally posted by Slay
Weed doesn't make you hallucinate period. You're right, my usage of the word high was a bit off there, but for the record most types of weed don't get you high, hasj (hach?) does. I happen to be from Holland and get most of my weed from the ''coffee-shops'', and never have I hallucinated from weed and neither has any of my friends. What still stands is that names like White Widow basically have no meaning. You've got types of weed like haze, which are the stronger types of weed etc. But really, around here at least, one shop's White Widow is another shops K2.

Edit: My usage of the word high wasn't off as dadudemon said something about his friend getting 'so high'. Weed very rarely gets you high, it gets you stoned, which are in fact two completely different experiences. The only weed I've ever had that got me high was some Purple Haze I got in Amsterdam.
I don't know what phrase you use but, "high" is generally the term for what marijuana does to people, as can be seen from its common use in music and other media. I at this point have absolutely zero idea what you mean by "getting high", because everyone I know would say that stoned and high are basically the same thing. What do you mean by "high"?

I never have heard of anyone to hallucinate from marijuana, so I agree with you there. I don't know how that one even came up.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I never have heard of anyone to hallucinate from marijuana, so I agree with you there. I don't know how that one even came up.

it certainly can have that effect, but it is not common, and may be related to its ability to agitate latent psychological conditions, like psychoses, schitzophrenia and numerous anxiety/depressive disorders. Pot is technically classified as a hallucinogen at times because of some of the systems if affects, but I would agree it is different from what are traditionally considered psychadellics.

that, and drugs affect people in very different ways, from a subjective sense. LSD, psilopsybin, and other seretonin resembling hallucinogens have never given me vivid visual hallucinations, in fact, only experience a K-hole ever gave me specific hallucinations.

Originally posted by King Kandy

I never have heard of anyone to hallucinate from marijuana, so I agree with you there. I don't know how that one even came up.
It's pretty hard to explain, as it's a feeling but around here, everyone uses the word stoned in reference to the effect of weed and high in reference of the effect of hash. In my experience weed makes you drowsy and gets you into a sort of meditative state. The effect of hash is much less invasive: You do feel like you're tripping, but it doesn't 'fatigue' your body.

That's why a lot of people smoke hash before they go out around here, to get in the mood.

Originally posted by inimalist
that, and drugs affect people in very different ways, from a subjective sense.
This is true, my only knowledge is that of experience. I'm not knowledgeable about what specific components are in certain drugs, and what effect they may have. So it might very well be that pot does make certain people hallucinate, though I've never heard anyone say pot made them hallucinate.

Marijuana usually a as a pipe or cigarette smoking. It also blunts, which are cigars that were emptied of tobacco and refilled with a mixture of marijuana and tobacco smoking are in. Marijuana most commonly used illegal drug in the U.S. The dry parts of the plant Cannabis sativa is made of hemp.

Originally posted by Slay
So it might very well be that pot does make certain people hallucinate, though I've never heard anyone say pot made them hallucinate. Let me be the first, then, though perhaps the term "hallucinate" is being used too loosely here.

In simplistic terms, the difference between hallucination on pot and hallucination on, say, LSD, is that, with pot it's as if mental imagery is being projected onto the screen of sensory awareness, whereas with LSD it's as if dream imagery is being projected.

Anyone ever make butter?

Originally posted by King Kandy
But, many people have made it a point to trip on LSD continuously for a multiple day span. Since one use can last for eight hours or more, you'd only need like nine doses for a 3-day trip, if you stayed up 24/7. I don't see how it could be possible to build a tolerance to the point of it being completely ineffective that fast, when many people have taken far more than nine doses over their usage.

it isn't that it is completely ineffective, its that the intensity of the high goes away very quickly

often, drugs of abuse are about chasing that high

like, tolorance isn't the single reason why halucinogens are not considered to be a high risk for abuse, but it plays off a lot of the other factors that cause drug abuse.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head though, another huge reason is that the only people who really take that amount of LSD are those who want that type of trip, rather than typical abuse situations, where people are self medicating.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Anyone ever make butter?

we had a margarine container full of it for a while, when I lived with a grower

It was awesome, get up in the morning, make a couple pieces of toast and eat them while I waited to take the bus to highschool

I don't really like the taste of it baked into cookies or brownies, but the butter was sooooooooooo good.

WOW, that would be some trip! It sounds scary. LSD for days..

Heck after 1/2 hour I'm done and want to go home...lol

Originally posted by Deja~vu
WOW, that would be some trip! It sounds scary. LSD for days..

Heck after 1/2 hour I'm done and want to go home...lol

He was talking about pot butter, not LSD butter.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He was talking about pot butter, not LSD butter. Pot butter would just make me hungry. LSD butter would make me talk to my toast. Who knows, it could be insiteful.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You need to use a foot long titanium pipe.
Interesting. Cools things down?

We had a 5ft plastic one. Didn't negate harshness by itself, but a good hit induced nigh OBEs.

put ice in the bong

lots are made with specific holders for it now, and if you live somewhere with snow, problem solved.

also, the longer the bong, the harsher the hit, as the smoke has to travel a longer distance and sits in the bong longer before you pull the shotgun.

the cleanest bong hits are from small glass bongs, with ice in them

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Pot butter would just make me hungry. LSD butter would make me talk to my toast. Who knows, it could be insiteful.
Tim Leary used to keep a tub of LSD frosting out at milbrook, anyone who wanted to trip would just scoop a little out when the whim struck them.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Anyone ever make butter?
I want to, but I don't have enough so I can't afford to waste it cooking for the time being.

Not touching the stuff till I finish my studies.

Weed + excelling in life = no chance.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Not touching the stuff till I finish my studies.

Weed + excelling in life = no chance.
lol, and I suppose that's why so many famous, successful people used it regularly? Does steve jobs ring a bell? How about bill gates?

Originally posted by the ninjak
Not touching the stuff till I finish my studies.

Weed + excelling in life = no chance.

really?

I seem to do alright

Though I try not to think of things in black-and-white terms, I feel pretty conservative on illegal drugs. I don't understand the appeal of marijuana (or alcohol or cigarettes for that matter) and I've never tried any. But I'm also objective enough to understand that a lot of empirical evidence indicates that marijuana isn't especially dangerous.

My curiosity about the subject pretty much begins and ends with the appeal of the substance itself. Would someone care to explain, in vivid detail?

Originally posted by Lacan Grahf
Though I try not to think of things in black-and-white terms, I feel pretty conservative on illegal drugs. I don't understand the appeal of marijuana (or alcohol or cigarettes for that matter) and I've never tried any. But I'm also objective enough to understand that a lot of empirical evidence indicates that marijuana isn't especially dangerous.

My curiosity about the subject pretty much begins and ends with the appeal of the substance itself. Would someone care to explain, in vivid detail?

Imagine all the boring things around you everyday. Now imagine these boring everyday thing seeming to be really interesting, and cool.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Imagine all the boring things around you everyday. Now imagine these boring everyday thing seeming to be really interesting, and cool.

This is vivid detail to you?

Isn't it possible to do interesting, cool things without the use of marijuana?

Originally posted by Lacan Grahf
This is vivid detail to you?

Isn't it possible to do interesting, cool things without the use of marijuana?

If you get stoned and read my post, it will seem to be really cool.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you get stoned and read my post, it will seem to be really cool.

Ah, you're a recruiter.

How fiendishly clever of you.

Originally posted by Lacan Grahf
My curiosity about the subject pretty much begins and ends with the appeal of the substance itself. Would someone care to explain, in vivid detail?

I imagine it is some initial curiosity as to "what does this do?", followed by enjoying the experience, such that you want to do it again.

I'm sure everyone can give you different reasons, in my case, it is certain that the reasons I get high now are much different than what caused me to get high in the first place.

Now it is a matter of preference, most things I would just rather do high, because the stresses involved seem less pronounced and I am generally in a better mood.

You aren't going to find some "theory of why people get high" though

Originally posted by inimalist
I imagine it is some initial curiosity as to "what does this do?", followed by enjoying the experience, such that you want to do it again.

I'm sure everyone can give you different reasons, in my case, it is certain that the reasons I get high now are much different than what caused me to get high in the first place.

Now it is a matter of preference, most things I would just rather do high, because the stresses involved seem less pronounced and I am generally in a better mood.

You aren't going to find some "theory of why people get high" though

That was a well thought out response.

I suppose I'm examining this through a sociological perspective. The use of marijuana, even in an increasingly liberal environment, is still considered deviant behavior. Is marijuana use the result of a person's instinctual desire for autonomy, rebellion, or a genuine love for its effects? Do users believe that happiness or bliss is unattainable without it?

On the flipside, my caution around marijuana is likely the result of fear. There is an overriding stereotype about so-called 'potheads' being lazy, unambitious, amoral, and stupid and the very few that I know propogate this belief.

But I try not to be a slave to stereotypes and propaganda, so I'd like to know more...

...Without actually trying it, of course.

Originally posted by Lacan Grahf
Ah, you're a recruiter.

How fiendishly clever of you.

No. I'm a smart ass.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. I'm a smart ass.

So am I. Can you not tell?

Originally posted by Lacan Grahf
That was a well thought out response.

I suppose I'm examining this through a sociological perspective. The use of marijuana, even in an increasingly liberal environment, is still considered deviant behavior. Is marijuana use the result of a person's instinctual desire for autonomy, rebellion, or a genuine love for its effects? Do users believe that happiness or bliss is unattainable without it?

On the flipside, my caution around marijuana is likely the result of fear. There is an overriding stereotype about so-called 'potheads' being lazy, unambitious, amoral, and stupid and the very few that I know propogate this belief.

But I try not to be a slave to stereotypes and propaganda, so I'd like to know more...

...Without actually trying it, of course.
I gave the old college try with a couple of my friends to try and explain the effects of Marijuana to someone who's never tried it, but its simply way too difficult. In my area, there isn't even a bias against smokers at all because of the hippie influence. People smoke in public in certain places and nobody gives a damn. So, I would have to say, it is definitely the effects of the substance that motivate me, and I can't really enunciate what they are in a way that truly evokes the experience.

So it's basically a rapture that can't be described and can only be experienced?

Would you say that the effects are addictive, in their own way?

Originally posted by Lacan Grahf
So it's basically a rapture that can't be described and can only be experienced?

Would you say that the effects are addictive, in their own way?

As addictive as a TV show.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
As addictive as a TV show.

So by that you mean "pretty damn"?

I wouldn't call it a "rapture", its almost less about what it itself does, then the way it causes other things to be thought about. Like, if you give someone pot and put them in a totally unstimulating environment, they will be as unhappy and bored as anyone else. You need to get some momentum going.

Well, since I started using it, i've liked it more and more as time went on . I've gone weeks without using it and I never felt anything negative associated with fasting. So, it may have some psychological aspects similar to addiction, but, if you're envisioning anything like alcoholism, that's far, far off the mark.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I wouldn't call it a "rapture", its almost less about what it itself does, then the way it causes other things to be thought about. Like, if you give someone pot and put them in a totally unstimulating environment, they will be as unhappy and bored as anyone else. You need to get some momentum going.

Well, since I started using it, i've liked it more and more as time went on . I've gone weeks without using it and I never felt anything negative associated with fasting. So, it may have some psychological aspects similar to addiction, but, if you're envisioning anything like alcoholism, that's far, far off the mark.

Yeah, the term addiction can be misused. I'm not sure if there's any psychological or neurological evidence suggesting that the watching of television shows or constant participation in sex or whatnot is comparable to alcoholism or cigarette addiction.

Essentially, would it honestly be a struggle for you to stop smoking pot, cold turkey?

Originally posted by Lacan Grahf
Yeah, the term addiction can be misused. I'm not sure if there's any psychological or neurological evidence suggesting that the watching of television shows or constant participation in sex or whatnot is comparable to alcoholism or cigarette addiction.

Essentially, would it honestly be a struggle for you to stop smoking pot, cold turkey?
There is a kind of addiction related to sex, television, exercise etc. This is the same kind of addiction related to marijuana. Its not like nicotine where there's a purely mechanical addiction from the substance itself, on top of the psychological aspects.

No. I've had to do so many times due to poor supplies, for weeks or months. Its no trouble at all.

Originally posted by King Kandy
There is a kind of addiction related to sex, television, exercise etc. This is the same kind of addiction related to marijuana. Its not like nicotine where there's a purely mechanical addiction from the substance itself, on top of the psychological aspects.

No. I've had to do so many times due to poor supplies, for weeks or months. Its no trouble at all.

Very good.

Next question: if the health risks are minimal or nonexistent, would you allow your children to do it?

Once they are old enough (like, late teenage), I would. My parents did the same for me, on the condition that I had to keep up good academics.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Once they are old enough (like, late teenage), I would. My parents did the same for me, on the condition that I had to keep up good academics.

Why the age restriction?

I think if they were younger, they'd just use it hedonistically to an unhealthy extent, like giving them a big bowl of candy.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think if they were younger, they'd just use it hedonistically to an unhealthy extent, like giving them a big bowl of candy.

Admittedly, I'm not ass deep in marijuana-relevant literature and analysis, so correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it been postulated that there is little to no harmful effects to its use?

So where is the risk, psychologically or medically?

Originally posted by Lacan Grahf
Admittedly, I'm not ass deep in marijuana-relevant literature and analysis, so correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it been postulated that there is little to no harmful effects to its use?

So where is the risk, psychologically or medically?
Right, that's why I used candy. Its pretty benign, but the problem is more like, if they eat all the candy they want, they'll neglect a healthy diet. In this case, if they get all the pot they want, they might neglect activities that require them to be sober.

So then you recognize that there is a danger to the use of marijuana?

Originally posted by Lacan Grahf
So then you recognize that there is a danger to the use of marijuana?
I think there's a "danger" in letting small children have too much of anything that might displace their productive activities. Its no different from limiting the time your kids spend playing video games so that they'll do their homework.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think there's a "danger" in letting small children have too much of anything that might displace their productive activities. Its no different from limiting the time your kids spend playing video games so that they'll do their homework.

A clever response. Excuse some of the loaded questions, I'm just trying to pick your brain and answer some of my random musings.

So let's assume, hypothetically, that you do have children. Using your analogy, most children do eat candy, and it's up to the parent to limit the intake.

Would you be willing to let your child use marijuana before his late teenage years if you controlled how much he or she used?

Originally posted by Lacan Grahf
A clever response. Excuse some of the loaded questions, I'm just trying to pick your brain and answer some of my random musings.

So let's assume, hypothetically, that you do have children. Using your analogy, most children do eat candy, and it's up to the parent to limit the intake.

Would you be willing to let your child use marijuana before his late teenage years if you controlled how much he or she used?
I can't really give a generalized answer to that. I'm not a parent, and I think it would depend on the attitude and maturity of the particular child in question.

Another problem is that a younger child couldn't necessarily be trusted to remain quiet about their use; which of course, could get me and my family into very heavy legal trouble. Now that I think about it, I don't think i'd even consider giving it to a child.

I don't know you very well, but from your answers, you seem to be responsible and mature in your marijuana use. You advocate for its use, but recognize potential dangers, and don't believe that it should be used with utter disregard.

That about right?

That sounds good to me. I mean, its situational as well. You could go live on a commune and just get stoned all the time and it wouldn't hurt you, when you're in a regular job or school, you got to sober up a bit. When in HS, i'd smoke several times a week during summer break, but during school it was more like a couple times a month.

Originally posted by Lacan Grahf
Is marijuana use the result of a person's instinctual desire for autonomy, rebellion, or a genuine love for its effects?

instinctual?

well, it can be, each person is different

Originally posted by Lacan Grahf
Do users believe that happiness or bliss is unattainable without it?

yes

Originally posted by Lacan Grahf
On the flipside, my caution around marijuana is likely the result of fear. There is an overriding stereotype about so-called 'potheads' being lazy, unambitious, amoral, and stupid and the very few that I know propogate this belief.

I've heard people who don't use it are presumptious, judgemental, overbearing, moralistic and the few I know propogate this belief

people are people

Originally posted by Lacan Grahf
Essentially, would it honestly be a struggle for you to stop smoking pot, cold turkey?

I'm 26 now. From the age of 17, I've essentially gotten high multiple times every day. Not only that, I dealt for a couple of years, so, for a while I had been in a situation where I smoked whenever I wanted.

I recently moved to a new city, where I don't have such access to pot, and have gone a week or a few days without it. I've cut back on my use probably 10 fold. What would have been a daily supply can now last me 3-4. This isn't just access, I have to be much more responsible with my money here than I previously had been.

This has really had no effect that I am aware of, and I have tried to be aware of possible withdrawl symptoms. Long story short, it isn't really that hard to give up, if its just not there.

Now, if I had a bag of it, and there was no reason for me not to smoke, I might have a hard time convincing myself not to, but there really was no dificulty in stopping or cutting back.

Originally posted by Lacan Grahf
Next question: if the health risks are minimal or nonexistent, would you allow your children to do it?

I can't imagine "allow" is the proper term. If your child is going to get high, there is very little you can do to stop them.

Originally posted by Lacan Grahf
Admittedly, I'm not ass deep in marijuana-relevant literature and analysis, so correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it been postulated that there is little to no harmful effects to its use?

So where is the risk, psychologically or medically? Being high all the time would probably screw up their mental development even without any significant permanent collateral damage. They need to be sober to learn shit at school, so drugs should be kept for adults.

Though, to be fair, I think that has more to do with the "not going to school" aspect than the "smoking marijuana" aspect. But I agree with you in principle.

tboo-HrDk0o

strange turn. I would have thought laws were incrementally changing toward legalization, but this is a big step back. I agree that it won't hold up, but if the dutch are making a crackdown on weed, that is ominous for the rest of us.

Originally posted by inimalist
tboo-HrDk0o

strange turn. I would have thought laws were incrementally changing toward legalization, but this is a big step back. I agree that it won't hold up, but if the dutch are making a crackdown on weed, that is ominous for the rest of us.

I like how the justification is that they weren't trying to bring in tourists when they had the idea.

hey man, Amsterdam is about the museums

I was going to go there this summer, as part of a euro-trek. I had planned to enjoy more than just coffeeshops, obviously, but I don't think i'll stop there if they're banned.

totally. I wasn't trying to imply there is nothing cool there, Rotterdam is actually a very significant city in the history of the electronic music I like, but without the coffeeshops, it doesn't add much that you can't find in any major European city. I figure they will realize this before they ban it in Amsterdam. the boarder cities I can understand a little more, but still, it's a weird move for the Dutch.

Yeah, I will be keeping a close eye on this story given how it may affect my vacation plans...

Made the most ghetto, low budget waterfall bong last night... works like a charm. Now that's how to smoke.

I've had my fair share of withdrawls.

Well that's kind of strange. What symptoms?

comparing pot to tobacco:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18342479



This study names increased sex drive, anxiety, and obviously "craving" as symptoms: (in the abstract at least)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20678028

this one shows anxiety effects in mice from THC withdrawl:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20363293

and while there is no abstract, the title here, about self reported sleep disturbance, may also be a sign

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20138005

I'm back home for the holidays, and I'm not entirely sure how to look up articles remotely here, so I can't look up what the questionaires of symptoms they use in the studies on withdrawl, but there are a good number of studies. Maybe like a dozen dealing with it in 2010. At the very least, it seems to be confirmed as a behavioural phenomenon.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Made the most ghetto, low budget waterfall bong last night... works like a charm. Now that's how to smoke.

I haven't made a waterfall in years... you might have inspired me!

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well that's kind of strange. What symptoms?


Nothing too harsh. Occasional anxiety. Waking up full of sweat for about a week. Pains in random places around my torso. It seems like its all in the mind. I also lost 10 pounds which I have now gained back after smoking and lifting again. I didn't have much of an apetite for about a week. Sometimes I'd just force myself to eat just to eat.

This was after smoking for three years daily. Now that I'm smoking again I can easily skip a day or a week without any symptoms. As for alcohol though... that ***** is creeping up on me.

Originally posted by inimalist
I haven't made a waterfall in years... you might have inspired me!
Make sure it has a tube attachment so it filters, makes it so much better.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Nothing too harsh. Occasional anxiety. Waking up full of sweat for about a week. Pains in random places around my torso. It seems like its all in the mind. I also lost 10 pounds which I have now gained back after smoking and lifting again. I didn't have much of an apetite for about a week. Sometimes I'd just force myself to eat just to eat.

This was after smoking for three years daily. Now that I'm smoking again I can easily skip a day or a week without any symptoms. As for alcohol though... that ***** is creeping up on me.
Yeah, that sounds pretty much like what i'd think. I don't smoke close to every day, so i've never really felt much when taking a break.

Originally posted by 753
Being high all the time would probably screw up their mental development even without any significant permanent collateral damage. They need to be sober to learn shit at school, so drugs should be kept for adults.

Well, there are the exceptions with those that have anxiety problems. There are also some that have ADHD that can focus/relax much more while in school, while baked.

But it would be illogical of me not to disclose that they were few and far between, not the rule.

Yeah, that's interesting. Pot is probably much healthier than Ritalin anyway.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Pot is probably much healthier than Ritalin anyway.


DEFINITELY!

I'm sure there is a MJ plant out there that would relax and calm the person but not make them drowsy. Perfect for people that have test anxiety or ADD/ADHD. But, I'm not a psychiatrist so I'm really just talking out of my ass.

Judging from my own experiences, I don't think I could do much academically while stoned... but then again, Ritalin is a stimulant but it "calms" people with ADHD, so who knows how it would affect them.

Originally posted by inimalist
totally. I wasn't trying to imply there is nothing cool there, Rotterdam is actually a very significant city in the history of the electronic music I like, but without the coffeeshops, it doesn't add much that you can't find in any major European city. I figure they will realize this before they ban it in Amsterdam. the boarder cities I can understand a little more, but still, it's a weird move for the Dutch.
Without coffeeshops Rotterdam is a horrible city.

I actually live in the city of Maastricht which was mentioned in the video. They tried to ban foreigners from coffeeshops here a while ago, and although most of the 'notorious' shops won't let foreigners in, you do find a lot of Germans and Belgians in coffeeshops that aren't in the center of town. I've never really seen any police near a coffeeshop, and definitely not to check out people's nationality. I doubt it'll be that different in Amsterdam.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, that's interesting. Pot is probably much healthier than Ritalin anyway.

depends. thc itself is very benign, but smoking anything, even with a vaporizer, is not healthy for you.

additionally, even though it isn't always prescribed correctly, and also given our pharmacology isn't perfect, meds that equalize an already existent imbalance in neurotransmitters shouldn't cause a huge degree of damage.

in real terms, the potential damage from Ritalin-esque meds is probably more severe, but if used properly, which it usually isn't, it probably doesn't pose as much barm as the lung damage one can get from pot.

that being said, I personally don't support any medical solution for ADHD, as there are possible behavioral solutions

Originally posted by inimalist
depends. thc itself is very benign, but smoking anything, even with a vaporizer, is not healthy for you.

additionally, even though it isn't always prescribed correctly, and also given our pharmacology isn't perfect, meds that equalize an already existent imbalance in neurotransmitters shouldn't cause a huge degree of damage.

in real terms, the potential damage from Ritalin-esque meds is probably more severe, but if used properly, which it usually isn't, it probably doesn't pose as much barm as the lung damage one can get from pot.

that being said, I personally don't support any medical solution for ADHD, as there are possible behavioral solutions

I've read that it is little to no lung damage from vaping below a certain temperature and that the only fears should be allergies.

Do you have a study that shows the negatives of vaping cause that would be damaging to my perspective on vaping.

Also, why couldn't the children just eat the pot with their food? Aren't there pill forms or nasal sprays, as well?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, why couldn't the children just eat the pot with their food? This is quite the phrase.

Originally posted by inimalist

I'm 26 now. From the age of 17, I've essentially gotten high multiple times every day. Not only that, I dealt for a couple of years, so, for a while I had been in a situation where I smoked whenever I wanted.

I recently moved to a new city, where I don't have such access to pot, and have gone a week or a few days without it. I've cut back on my use probably 10 fold. What would have been a daily supply can now last me 3-4. This isn't just access, I have to be much more responsible with my money here than I previously had been.

This has really had no effect that I am aware of, and I have tried to be aware of possible withdrawl symptoms. Long story short, it isn't really that hard to give up, if its just not there.

Now, if I had a bag of it, and there was no reason for me not to smoke, I might have a hard time convincing myself not to, but there really was no dificulty in stopping or cutting back.
This post is the reason it should be legalized. I've read a lot of your posts and before I knew that you smoked regularly I thought that you where one of the most open minded and intelligent posters who hesitated to judge quickly and made very good points. Thanks for giving me more evidence that more people should smoke. I think it allows people to think more intensely on things and respect others ideas as well. We may disagree intensely on some things but I really don't care. Keep posting man.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I've read that it is little to no lung damage from vaping below a certain temperature and that the only fears should be allergies.

considering they only recently identified carcinogenic chemicals in pot smoke, I'd take that with a grain of salt. I imagine it is better, but I would be skeptical of anything that suggests inhaling any substance is not doing some damage

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you have a study that shows the negatives of vaping cause that would be damaging to my perspective on vaping.

I can't think of anything specific, what journals would you suggest in terms of finding that type of data? maybe I'm being a bit too dismissive, but I would be surprised if any serious research had been done on the issue.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, why couldn't the children just eat the pot with their food? Aren't there pill forms or nasal sprays, as well?

is your question "why shouldn't children take psychoactive drugs" or just, why shouldn't they take them to treat ADHD

remember, I don't really support medical treatments of adhd

Originally posted by inimalist
depends. thc itself is very benign, but smoking anything, even with a vaporizer, is not healthy for you.

additionally, even though it isn't always prescribed correctly, and also given our pharmacology isn't perfect, meds that equalize an already existent imbalance in neurotransmitters shouldn't cause a huge degree of damage.

in real terms, the potential damage from Ritalin-esque meds is probably more severe, but if used properly, which it usually isn't, it probably doesn't pose as much barm as the lung damage one can get from pot.

that being said, I personally don't support any medical solution for ADHD, as there are possible behavioral solutions
They can eat brownies. It'll get them through a whole school day too, unlike smoking which you'd probably have to do twice.

I seriously doubt that smoking (esp vaporizing) does enough "lung damage" to be that bad. Studies showed no propensity at all towards lung cancer, you've smoked every day, do you have any kind of bronchitis etc. to speak for it? I have something of a cough which I associate with smoking, but this was coming off an earlier flu. Meanwhile, in the US about 8000 Ritalin overdoses are recorded per year (not fatalities) and has a variety of adverse effects.