CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Lifestyle › Health › Marijuana legalization

Marijuana legalization

Started by Gerald Cox38 · · 👁 16 views · 227 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Gerald Cox38darkpanther6wanderingmason37fadedtrucker19slybison8ADana Miller6placidotter15Jerry Evans6ironbadger31Daniel Patelruggedraven5Anthony Turner71Daniel Wells4James Nguyen13Joseph Kern11Melissa Price6James Turner80Joshua Jones10wanderingmaker8Justin Foster4Sam Green73nimblemarlin17Charles Jackson5 …
James Turner80 James Turner80 Newcomer
9 messages
joined Jul 2010
#161 ·
Kyle Ross56 said:It’s great how much you seem to know about the marijuana myth. How long did it take you to find all this on Google?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/columns/psycho...is,%203.%20part

And?
That's why I used quotation marks... because those aren't my own words.
I didn't put them there because they're supposed to be some revolutionary manifesto, just so you wouldn't accuse me of plagiarism...

Kyle Ross56 said:I basically just dismantled your entire argument.

If those examples were enough to debunk the claims about marijuana being harmful, I really don't understand why everyone would still be "blind" to it...
Why don't you try sending these pages to, say, someone in the government actually in charge of marijuana policy?
Maybe you'll "convert" them...

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html
NIDA

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/...ana/index.html
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)

http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govpubs/phd641/
SAMHSA

http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/04-06-14-01.all.html

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/325/7374/1212.pdf

http://www.ukcia.org/research/COMTgene.pdf

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/con...act/15/10/1829

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=...rttext&tlng=en

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/...urcetype=HWCIT

By your logic, I've just shut you down.
But by any common sense, this is just proof that different perspectives exist...
slypuma17 slypuma17 Active Member
87 messages
joined May 2009
#162 ·
James Turner80 said:If those examples could actually debunk the claims regarding the harms of marijuana...

It’s funny watching you all squirm, trying to engineer new ways to dodge the point... it's really the only thing you have left to do.
Who is going to address my actual question? Does an adult citizen have the right—at their own risk—to make their own decisions? I mean, who can give me a straight YES or NO without dragging minors, pedophiles, or little green men into the conversation?
None of you lovely people, overflowing with love and concern for your fellow man—specifically our dear friends who are always "ready for anything illegal"—will answer. Because by any standard of logic or principle, you feel they simply DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT!!!
The right to personal choice and autonomy applies, in a general sense, to absolutely every adult individual,
not just to those who happen to want to smoke marijuana. See, if you claim this right belongs only to "them," you're essentially stripping it from yourselves too. You'll find yourselves in quite a bind, because if nobody possesses the right to decide, then you don't either. How, then, can you justify deciding for "them"?!
If you answer "yes," then it’s clear this is your final word in the entire debate. Because if we possess that right, you no longer have any grounds to lecture anyone about marijuana, alcohol, turkey dinner, or anything else under the sun.
So...🙂 do we have any heroes in here?

De, debunk the fundamental, inalienable right of every individual to make their own choices, then! It isn't just about "them"; you're digging a grave for yourselves as well!

But by universal logic, this is merely proof that different perspectives exist.

Sure, but you're forcing only one perspective as if it were the absolute truth...
Kyle Ross56 Kyle Ross56 Member
21 messages
joined Jun 2007
#163 ·
You didn't put everything in quotes, take another look... but honestly, who cares...

James Turner80 said:If those examples could actually shut down the whole marijuana myth, I honestly have no clue why everyone stays so "blind" to the truth...

So you're telling me I can't? What's that even supposed to mean... what's actually wrong with them...

James Turner80 said:Why don't you just try sending those pages to someone in charge of the whole marijuana myth situation at the federal level... maybe they'll actually listen for once...

Kyle Ross56 said:Yeah, honestly, the only studies worth a damn are the independent ones that aren't being bankrolled by Big Pharma... you know, the ones coming from outside the major government agencies...

It’s because decisions around here are made by politicians instead of actual scientists... and honestly, half those politicians are about as open-minded as our buddy Tommy over here...

Government-funded studies from state institutes just can't be objective because they're run by the exact same people who benefit from keeping marijuana illegal... which in the US is basically the whole government. Especially given how draconian their drug policies are here. I'm telling you again, if you actually trust NIDA... Check this out... Check out this documentary...
Check this out... http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

So basically, I'm not even gonna bother clicking those links... I don't give a damn about government propaganda...

/www.whitehousedrugpolicy.I don't know, man... just feels like everything's a mess...Check out this link from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy regarding the whole marijuana myth thing... http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/marijuana/index.html
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy The policy situation is just... what even is that? Typical bureaucracy at its finest... White House Office of National Drug Control Policy

" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/04-06-14-01.all.html
1. "Clearly, further work is needed to test this hypothesis."
2. Why do I always have to repeat myself, nobody actually reads anything and everyone just talks trash:

Read it, it refers specifically to the type of research described in your link.

Although most young people use cannabis in adolescence without harm, a vulnerable minority experience harmful outcomes.

In other words, even though most people aren't allergic to peanuts, a tiny handful of people can die from that allergy (I know this because more people die from peanut allergies every year than from MDMA, but that's a whole different story...)

Our findings suggest that cannabis use among psychologically vulnerable should be strongly discouraged. Which I totally agree with. Like, let me say it again, I never said weed was harmless. But hitting it on the weekend is way safer than getting wasted on something else...

[URL]http://www.ukcia.org/research/COMTgene.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/325/7374/1212.pdf
Although most young people use cannabis in adolescence without harm, a vulnerable minority experience harmful outcomes.

In other words, even though most people aren't allergic to peanuts, a tiny handful of people can die from that allergy (I know this because more people die from peanut allergies every year than from MDMA, but that's a whole different story...)

Our findings suggest that cannabis use among psychologically vulnerable should be strongly discouraged. Which I totally agree with. Like, let me say it again, I never said weed was harmless. But hitting it on the weekend is way safer than getting wasted on something else...

[URL]http://www.ukcia.org/research/COMTgene.pdf

🤣 Oh man, are you seriously telling me you understand more than 10% of what's written under that link?

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/con...act/15/10/1829

Are you trying to kill yourself? Did you even read that at all?

Conclusions: Our results may have been affected by selection bias or error in measuring lifetime exposure and confounder histories; but they suggest that the association of these cancers with marijuana, even long-term or heavy use, is not strong and may be below practically detectable limits

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=...rttext&tlng=en

Possible hepatotoxicity of chronic marijuana usage.
CONCLUSIONS: Chronic marijuana usage, on its own or in association with other drugs, was associated with hepatic morphologic and enzymatic alterations. This indicates that cannabinoids are possible hepatotoxic substances.

It's possible I'll drop dead tomorrow. But probably won't...

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/...urcetype=HWCIT

Participants: A statewide secondary school sample of 1601 students aged 14-15 followed for seven years

Oh, wow. Groundbreaking discovery... obviously using drugs while you're going through puberty isn't great for you. Now they've "proven" those kids end up more depressed. Big deal. Like I said, street dealers aren't exactly checking IDs, which is exactly why we need a legal, regulated system instead...[/URL]
Jerry Wood21 Jerry Wood21 Member
18 messages
joined Jun 2007
#164 ·
I’m glad we’re actually getting into a heated debate over this topic for once 😁
Sam Green73 Sam Green73 Active Member
144 messages
joined Aug 2018
#165 ·
Kyle Ross56 said:You honestly can't even have a serious conversation about drug legalization without people immediately pivoting to health concerns. It’s become the go-to playbook for anyone pushing the prohibitionist agenda—they use public health arguments as a convenient shield to justify keeping everything criminalized.

I think we can all pretty much agree on how things stand. Drug use is such a complex thing to wrap your head around, isn't it? It’s never just about the substance itself; it’s about why people reach for it in the first place—whether they're looking for an escape, trying to manage some heavy mental stuff, or just chasing a feeling. There’s so much nuance to how different substances affect everyone differently, and honestly, there's a lot of misinformation out there that makes things way more confusing than they need to be. More or less? Honestly, it’s just plain bad for you. There's really no way to sugarcoat it—it's harmful to your health..
Look, at the end of the day, there's no such thing as a perfect substance. Every single medication out there is basically a double-edged sword—you’re always going to be weighing the pros against the cons. Whether you're talking about something prescribed by a doctor or anything else, there's always a trade-off between the benefits you're looking for and the side effects you have to deal with. It's just the reality of how chemistry works.

I don't quite follow what you're getting at there, friend! You just dropped a single word without any context. Are you trying to start a conversation about something specific, or was that just a typo? Whatever it is, I'm all ears. Lay it out for me—give me the full story or ask your question, and let's get a real discussion going. I love diving into the details, so don't be shy! Look, we really need to talk about this because there's such a massive misconception floating around out there. When you look at the actual data, MDMA is significantly more addictive than marijuana, and it's also linked to a whole host of serious health issues. It’s one of those things where the reality on the ground is just so different from the common myths people tend to repeat.
It’s totally legal, but let’s be real—people constantly overlook how much passive smoking actually affects everyone else.
It’s honestly heartbreaking to think about how many kids out there are breathing in secondhand smoke on a daily basis. It’s one of those things that just hits home when you realize how much they're being exposed to constant tobacco smoke just by being around adults.
It’s the same story when you’re just hanging out at a local bar or grabbing a coffee downtown—you're constantly exposed to that same intoxicating allure and all the toxic baggage that comes along with it.
To be completely honest, when it comes to my own health, I feel like having someone smoking right next to me is way worse than them using needles or even popping pills. It’s just one of those things that hits differently for me.

Exactly. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how we view alcohol in our culture. It’s one of those things that feels almost invisible because it’s woven so tightly into the fabric of everyday life here in the States. You go to a wedding, a business dinner, or even just a casual Friday night hangout with friends, and there it is—always front and center. It’s funny, isn't it? We have these massive social rituals built entirely around grabbing a drink. In some ways, it acts like this universal social lubricant that helps people loosen up and connect. I remember back in college, most of my best stories and deepest conversations happened over a few beers at a local pub. There was just this sense of ease that came with it. But then you look at the flip side, and it gets much more complicated. We live in a country where the line between "celebrating" and "overdoing it" can get incredibly blurry. There’s a real tension between the fun, social aspect of having a cocktail and the very real health concerns that organizations like the National Institute on Drug Abuse often highlight. It’s a heavy topic because it hits so close to home for so many families. I think it really comes down to balance and awareness. For some, a glass of wine with dinner is a relaxing ritual; for others, it can become a much more difficult cycle to break. It’s definitely not a black-and-white issue, and I’m curious to hear what you all think. Do you see it as a vital part of American social life, or do you think we put too much emphasis on drinking as a way to unwind?Honestly, if you look at the facts, it’s way easier to overdose on alcohol than it is on marijuana. It's just one of those things that people don't talk about enough when they're debating which one is "worse."

The whole argument that marijuana use acts as a gateway to harder drugs just doesn't hold water. Honestly, saying that marijuana leads to harder substances is like saying eating beef leads you straight to heavy narcotics—it’s a total logical leap. If you look at the actual patterns, most people who end up using harder drugs simply happened to use marijuana first. It’s a correlation, not a cause-and-effect relationship. In my opinion, the real issue lies with how we treat these substances. When we criminalize marijuana, we create this weird social stigma where users are labeled or grouped together, which can actually push someone toward more intense drug cultures. Instead of seeing a progression from one substance to another, I think it’s more accurate to say that the criminalization of marijuana creates a pathway where users might feel pushed toward harder drugs because of the way society treats them. It's less about the biology of the plant and more about the social consequences of the laws themselves.

Look, if we’ve already reached a consensus that marijuana is harmful, I honestly don't see the point in dragging this out into an endless debate over the exact degree of damage. Once we agree on the core issue, why spend all our energy nitpicking the specifics?

So, here’s the big question I’ve been chewing on: when you look at society as a whole, which path actually does more good? Is it better for marijuana to be strictly criminalized, kept illegal, or fully legalized? It's one of those massive debates that seems to spark an argument no matter where you go, but I really want to dig into what's best for the community at large.
Honestly, we really ought to be asking this same question when it comes to alcohol and tobacco, too.

I truly believe that once you reach adulthood, everything changes... upućena At the end of the day, an individual has the right to make their own damn decisions.
Personally, I’m a firm believer that smoking shouldn't be allowed just anywhere; it really needs to be restricted to designated areas only.
I really want to drive this point home. The intended recipient I mean, honestly, you could probably have a whole separate debate about where the line for adulthood actually sits. It’s one of those things that isn't as black and white as people like to pretend.

Look, I truly believe kids shouldn't have access to drugs, but we need to talk about where we draw the line. It feels like we’ve gone overboard. In my opinion, if a kid gets caught with a pack of cigarettes, it shouldn't immediately trigger an investigation by Child Protective Services or force parents to sit down for a formal meeting with social workers. It seems excessive to jump straight to that level of intervention just because a minor is breaking a smoking age law. Instead of making everything a massive legal ordeal that involves the state stepping into family business, shouldn't we focus more on the actual messaging? We already see warnings everywhere stating that minors can't buy tobacco—that should be enough. Let's keep things in perspective; there's a huge difference between a teenager experimenting with a cigarette and actual substance abuse issues. Overreacting to every little thing just creates unnecessary fear for families.

Look, I’ve always believed that addiction is a massive, heavy burden to carry. It’s a deep-seated evil that touches so many lives, and honestly, there isn't any way around saying it: addiction is a profound tragedy.
James Turner80 James Turner80 Newcomer
9 messages
joined Jul 2010
#166 ·
Kyle Ross56 said:Government-funded studies coming out of state institutions just can't be objective... they're run by the very same people who have a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal to protect their own power. This is especially true in the United States, given how draconian the drug policies have become here. I’m telling you again, if you actually trust NIDA... Take a look... This documentary...
Check out this video link... http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

If I were thinking like you, I wouldn't even touch those links... I'd be too worried that they might just be sponsored studies funded by the drug industry itself...

Kyle Ross56 said:It’s because decisions in this country are made by politicians rather than scientists... And honestly, a good chunk of those politicians are just as open-minded as our Tommy here...

At the end of the day, policy drives everything... it's the politicians calling the shots, not the scientists...
I really hope you aren't getting the wrong idea about how legal marijuana actually is over in the Netherlands...

Kyle Ross56 said:Our research seems to indicate that marijuana use among... When someone is feeling psychologically vulnerable... it changes everything. It’s like the mental armor just thins out, leaving you exposed to things you'd normally brush off... much more easily. Everything hits harder. You start questioning things you used to be certain about... and that makes it all the more difficult to navigate... It really ought to be strongly discouraged. I couldn't agree more. To be clear, I’m not saying marijuana is completely harmless... But it’s definitely a lot safer to just smoke on the weekends than to go down the path of MDMA...

We aren't talking about whether one option is "way safer" than the other... we're looking at whether it can actually cause negative consequences...

Kyle Ross56 said:🤣 Are you actually serious right now... telling me you understand more than 10% of what's written at that link...?

If you're interested, maybe try using a dictionary or, at the very least, one of those translation programs...

Kyle Ross56 said:Are you trying to kill yourself here? Did you even read what was written?

Well, after checking with an acquaintance about what would be best to include, I think I might have applied the paste technique to the wrong page...😁

slypuma17 said:The way you guys keep twisting things into new loopholes... it's all you seem capable of doing.
Who is actually going to answer my question—does an adult citizen, acting on their own responsibility, have the right to make their own decisions? Or rather, who will give me a straight YES or NO without dragging minors, pedophiles, or aliens into the conversation...
None of these wonderful people, so full of love and concern for their neighbors—our dear friends who are always "ready for illegal stuff"—will answer. Because based on no logic or principle whatsoever, they DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT!!!
That right to individual choice applies, in a general sense, to absolutely all adults,
not just those who want or might want to smoke marijuana. So, if you claim this right belongs to "them," you're essentially denying it to yourselves too, which puts you in quite a bind... because if nobody has the right to decide, then you don't either, so how can you decide for "them"?!
If you answer "yes," then it's crystal clear that this is your final word in this whole discussion, because if we have that right, there's no point in lecturing anyone else anymore, whether it's about marijuana, alcohol, a Sunday roast, or anything else.
So...🙂 any heroes in here?

Good grief, not only do you clearly know nothing about logic (you managed to put together some sort of logical structure here, but one detailed analysis would show it falls apart immediately due to jumping between different levels), but you obviously know nothing about law either. And social structures aren't exactly your strong suit, are they?
Let's try a colorful example.
If I pass a law prohibiting the crime of child abuse, I am obviously prohibiting myself from committing that crime (unless I include a clause allowing certain groups or specific cases to do so). Even if I have no desire to abuse a ten-year-old, I am forbidding it for myself.
And what is strange or paradoxical about that?
With that law, I prohibit the act itself.
So, if a legislative body passes a law banning Sunday roast, neither they nor anyone else will be allowed to eat it. Unless, as I mentioned before, there isn't a clause that permits them to do so.
We aren't discussing how stupid or good that law might be.

slypuma17 said:Yeah, but you guys are acting like there's only one way to look at this...

First off, I am certainly not pushing any particular agenda.
Second, you all seem to be pushing just one single point of view, too.
Sam Green73 Sam Green73 Active Member
144 messages
joined Aug 2018
#167 ·
James Turner80 said:Look, if I pass a law that makes child abuse illegal, I’m obviously just making sure I don't do it myself (unless I sneak in some loophole for specific groups or special circumstances, of course). Even if I personally have zero urge to mess with a ten-year-old, I’m still banning the act.
So what’s the big deal or the paradox there?
With that law, I am prohibiting the act.

It honestly feels like you’re equating the exploitation of kids—or even just hurting other people—with someone simply choosing to use substances for their own enjoyment on their own terms.
Is this coming from some bad experiences of yours?
Or is it just empty rhetoric?
James Turner80 James Turner80 Newcomer
9 messages
joined Jul 2010
#168 ·
I mentioned earlier that I wanted to provide a vivid illustration to help clarify my point a bit better...
At the end of the day, a crime is a crime, plain and simple.
The reason I brought up this specific example is because I know some people here don't view using certain drugs as a criminal act, so maybe this scenario will help make my perspective a little clearer.
Sam Green73 Sam Green73 Active Member
144 messages
joined Aug 2018
#169 ·
So, we're talking rhetoric here.
James Turner80 said:I mentioned I was using an vivid example just to help clarify my point a bit better.
Look, a crime is a crime, plain and simple.
The reason I brought up this specific scenario is because there are people in this thread who don't view using certain drugs as a criminal offense, so maybe this comparison will make things click for them.

A crime is simply whatever the law defines as one.
If you wanted to be descriptive, you could have talked about parking on a crosswalk or jaywalking against a red light.

Let’s try to stay on track here.

Some folks in this discussion believe that using certain drugs should be illegal, while others feel it shouldn't be.
Jerry Wood21 Jerry Wood21 Member
18 messages
joined Jun 2007
#170 ·
James Turner80 thinks he’s got something to say—that the marijuana myth about it not being addictive is somehow true. It’s just not happening.
Sam Green73 Sam Green73 Active Member
144 messages
joined Aug 2018
#171 ·
Jerry Wood21 said:James Turner80 thinks there's something to the idea that the marijuana myth means it doesn't cause addiction. But honestly, that just isn't going to fly.

Come on, man, don't start with this too.
If we're already dealing with plenty of legal substances out there that are incredibly addictive, then this whole argument stops being the central issue here.
slypuma17 slypuma17 Active Member
87 messages
joined May 2009
#172 ·
James Turner80 said:Alright, let’s walk through a vivid little illustration here.

[claps] 🤣 You didn't exactly let me down there; that was pretty much the answer I was bracing for. It was a colorful little analogy that had absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic, topped off with those subtle little jabs—what some might call "ad hominem" remarks. Honestly? It was textbook.

If I were tasked with drafting legislation to prohibit the crime of child abuse, my approach wouldn't be about just slapping a new rule on the books. It’s more complex than that—it's about building a framework that actually holds up under pressure. You can't just declare something illegal and expect the social fabric to mend itself; you have to address the systemic gaps that allow such harm to occur in the first place. It would require a multi-layered strategy involving law enforcement, social services, and strict judicial oversight to ensure that protection isn't just a word in a statute, but a functional reality for every kid in the country.

🙂 This isn't even about jumping between different levels of argument; it’s just textbook demagoguery.
Peter Peric, a thirty-year-old who spends his time smoking homegrown and listening to music—who exactly is he supposed to be intimidating?

We aren't here to debate whether that law is a total disaster or actually a good idea.

Wait, is that actually against the rules?
What exactly is the core focus of our discussion here?
Elizabeth Parker55 Elizabeth Parker55 Newcomer
1 message
joined Jul 2007
#173 ·
So, looking at how this thread is playing out, it seems we've hit a bit of a loop:

Marijuana isn't harmful!
Prove it!
Here’s a link: www.xyz.com
www.xyz.com is just some pro-marijuana site, so it doesn't count as proof.
And it just goes on like that forever...

Alright, since you all seem stuck, here is a data source that is basically 99% objective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana

You can find absolutely everything here regarding the pros, the cons, and the various myths surrounding marijuana.

Oh, and before the inevitable crowd chimes in with, "But anyone can edit Wikipedia, so obviously this evidence is useless because it's just more pro-marijuana propaganda..." YES, it's true that anyone can edit it, but they still have to cite actual sources, otherwise the moderators just scrub the entry clean. If you check this specific link, there are 68 different citations you can verify, and you won't find a single sentence that isn't backed up by a source.

P.S. Don't worry, I doubt we'll be waiting much longer for marijuana to be decriminalized... 😁
Sam Green73 Sam Green73 Active Member
144 messages
joined Aug 2018
#174 ·
Elizabeth Parker55 said:Marijuana is harmless!

I disagree—marijuana definitely has its downsides.

The real debate isn't about whether it's "safe," it's about whether we should legalize it or not.
urbandriver urbandriver Newcomer
1 message
joined Jul 2007
#175 ·
I can't help but feel a certain sense of pride regarding our little corner of the universe, mostly because we're seeing such a massive surge in the number of "users" out there lately.🙂 🙂
James Turner80 James Turner80 Newcomer
9 messages
joined Jul 2010
#176 ·
slypuma17 said:👏 🤣 You didn't disappoint me; that was exactly the response I expected. A vivid example that’s completely irrelevant to the topic, paired with some subtle ad hominem jabs... just following the script!

Well, I have to admit, I'm actually pretty glad I lived up to your expectations...

slypuma17 said:This isn't even about moving the goalposts; it's just textbook demagoguery.
Peter Peric, a thirty-year-old guy who smokes at home and listens to music—who exactly is he victimizing?

That example was brought up for a very understandable reason, and you clearly see why...
Those people acting like the opposition are trying to frame the point as mere demagoguery just to strip it of its meaning. Nothing unusual there... standard procedure in these kinds of debates.
But don't think for a second that's going to get to me... 🤣

slypuma17 said:What, is that forbidden?
What exactly have we been talking about this whole time?

And again... 🤣
We are discussing whether the legalization of marijuana is useful or necessary.
Maybe the issue is just that you had trouble clicking that number "1" to get back to the first page and read what I wrote... so now I'm giving you the answer...
Kyle Ross56 Kyle Ross56 Member
21 messages
joined Jun 2007
#177 ·
James Turner80 said:If I were thinking like you, I wouldn't even touch those links you posted... I'd be too busy worrying that they're just paid-off studies funded by the drug scene itself...

It’s not just some random stuff either, we're talking independent studies from major universities and private research institutes... You honestly think there's some massive drug lobby powerful enough to rig research at the most prestigious universities and institutions in the world? That's just straight-up paranoia from Sasha Radovic...

They call it "government research"... Whatever... It’s pretty obvious they just want results that back up the policies they’ve already got in place... nothing more, nothing less.

At the end of the day, policy dictates everything... scientists don't have a say in how things actually go down.
I really hope you aren't getting too ahead of yourself regarding the whole marijuana myth over in the Netherlands...

The Netherlands actually has its act together, unlike here in the States where you can basically do whatever you want just because of where you happen to be standing, completely ignoring what the scientific community says... It’s not like all of Europe either, where marijuana is mostly decriminalized and a ton of other soft drugs like psilocybin and mescaline are legal in way more countries...

We aren't even talking about whether it's "way safer" or whatever... we're looking at whether it can actually cause some serious damage...

Everything has a downside, honestly. Even that cheap grocery store pudding is packed with carcinogenic preservatives that stick to your system way longer than any drug ever could...
slypuma17 slypuma17 Active Member
87 messages
joined May 2009
#178 ·
urbandriver said:I’m genuinely proud of our little corner of the universe because we’re seeing more and more "users" popping up everywhere.

I wouldn't go that far, honestly. Where are all these legendary users you're talking about? I don't see them exactly everywhere.
They’re hiding, looking over their shoulders, creeping around in the shadows... even when they're just at home pulling the curtains shut and lowering the blinds. It seems like they've grown so accustomed to their current situation that, sometimes, it feels like they don't actually want change. It strikes me that they secretly enjoy their status—especially the younger crowd who think, "Oh, we're outlaws, we're the rebels." Yeah, right...🙄
These self-proclaimed rebels aren't exactly taking any meaningful action.
Maybe it's just inconceivable to them that one day they might be able to walk into a coffee shop and buy their marijuana just like anyone else, without glancing around nervously or keeping their heads down. Perhaps in a world like that, they wouldn't even know how to act...
At the end of the day, they aren't really the big shots they imagine themselves to be...
Jerry Wood21 Jerry Wood21 Member
18 messages
joined Jun 2007
#179 ·
Sam Green73 has one theory—so go ahead and tear it apart for me. It's all in your head anyway.
James Turner80 James Turner80 Newcomer
9 messages
joined Jul 2010
#180 ·
Kyle Ross56 said:It’s not just one thing; we're talking about independent studies from universities and private institutes. Do you honestly believe there's some massive drug lobby powerful enough to rig research at the most prestigious universities and institutes in the world? I call that the Saša Radović paranoia syndrome...

With government-funded "research," it's obviously in their best interest to produce results that justify the current policy regarding whatever they are studying.

Honestly, I don't care if you want to call it the Saša Radović syndrome or the Ivo Sanader syndrome...
Theoretically, those kinds of studies could actually benefit drug lobbies.
It's much easier to operate legally than it is to stay underground.

Kyle Ross56 said:The Netherlands has a very organized system where, unlike here in America, you can't just do whatever you want based on your position while ignoring the scientific community. It's similar to Europe, where cannabis is decriminalized in most places, and in many countries, other substances like Psilocybin and mescaline are too.

You can abuse your position anywhere...
It's incredibly naive to think that political corruption doesn't exist in "the West."
The only difference is that in "the West," that kind of corruption is carried out much more sophisticatedly than what you see in America.

Kyle Ross56 said:Okay. Everything can have negative consequences. Even a snack cake from a gas station contains carcinogenic preservatives that stay in your body longer than any drug ever would.

And then they have the nerve to tell me I'm selling demagoguery?

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads