rajarshi s
New member
Opinions? Comments? Criticisms?
can you guess which of the drugs are legal and which aren't?
can you guess which of the drugs are legal and which aren't?
Drugs!
- Thread starter rajarshi s
- Start date
cincibohemian94
New member
You should investigate NIDA and the reliability of their pronouncements.
013megustastu013
New member
I did not vote in this poll when it came out due to the claim of drug B and the possible debate concerning it's effect on coordination. There possibly have been deaths caused by marijuana.
However, I bet you could count them all on your fingers.
However, I bet you could count them all on your fingers.
Mrs Delusional
New member
Drug B of course. I'm guessing that drug B is marihuana?
derock1982
New member
How could so many be functioning and undetected if it was as bad as NIDA claims? I'm sure someone killed themself while under the influence of a triple espresso.
Perhaps not as a main causitive agent, but there have been pot-induced deaths (aka 'accidents').
But using the 'pot killed no one' argument will sway no one. Pointing out the failings of prohibition (in the past and now) is where the true proof lies. What level of crime is reduced by removing prohibition? And what of enforcement savings (the billions spent to fight a 'war' that we never win, and cannot win).
I in am favor of legalizing it all, and dealing w/those that commit crimes against others, not for Johnny Pothead getting high in his house and decimating a box of Suzy-Qs.
But using the 'pot killed no one' argument will sway no one. Pointing out the failings of prohibition (in the past and now) is where the true proof lies. What level of crime is reduced by removing prohibition? And what of enforcement savings (the billions spent to fight a 'war' that we never win, and cannot win).
I in am favor of legalizing it all, and dealing w/those that commit crimes against others, not for Johnny Pothead getting high in his house and decimating a box of Suzy-Qs.
Difficult to show a causal link to cannabis given the routine tests only establish the fact that you've injested THC sometime in the last month or so. Longer for the hair strand test.
You might find this interesting:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving4.shtml
And this:
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/goode/mjsmokers7.htm
"Marijuana, it is said, impairs the ability to perform manual tasks and manipulations. For instance, it is claimed that the widespread use of the drug represents a massive danger to society because of its obvious deterioration of driving ability, thus increasing the likelihood of fatalities on the road.[10] "I ask the kiRAB," a journalist intones, in a series of articles attempting to avert marijuana use in her readers, "If you have to fly someplace, which would you rather see your pilot take, a martini or smoke a marijuana cigarette?"[11] Aside from the inaptness of the comparison (since very few drinkers can become intoxicated on one martini, while most marijuana smokers do become high on one "joint"), the striking thing about the verbal gauntlet is that the author assumes that the answer is a foregone conclusion. In fact, do we know the answer? Which is, as a result of actual tests, the safer and which is the more dangerous? Curiously, the assertion that it is far more dangerous to drive under the influence of marijuana has never been documented; it is assumed. After all, the role of alcohol in driving fatalities is only too well known; something like twenty-five thousand deaths every year from automobile accidents can more or less be directly attributed to the overindulgence of liquor. The reasoning is that if alcohol is dangerous, marijuana must, of necessity, be worse, because it is legally prohibited; moreover, the results of the two together can only be additive.
The only tests done on driving skills was completed a few months after the Boston experiments in the state of Washington. A team of researchers, including Alfred Crancer of the Washington State Department of Motor Vehicles, and James Dille, Chairman of University of Washington's Department of Pharmacology, conducted an experiment on simulated driving skills.[12] (Tests on actual driving conditions are planned.) The various driving functions were accelerator, signal, brake, speedometer, steering, and total test score; a total of 405 checks were made throughout the course of the entire experiment, so that a subject's total number of errors could range, theoretically, from zero to 405. Subjects were experienced marijuana users who were also acquainted with the liquor intoxication. They were administered the test (1) high on marijuana
You might find this interesting:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving4.shtml
And this:
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/goode/mjsmokers7.htm
"Marijuana, it is said, impairs the ability to perform manual tasks and manipulations. For instance, it is claimed that the widespread use of the drug represents a massive danger to society because of its obvious deterioration of driving ability, thus increasing the likelihood of fatalities on the road.[10] "I ask the kiRAB," a journalist intones, in a series of articles attempting to avert marijuana use in her readers, "If you have to fly someplace, which would you rather see your pilot take, a martini or smoke a marijuana cigarette?"[11] Aside from the inaptness of the comparison (since very few drinkers can become intoxicated on one martini, while most marijuana smokers do become high on one "joint"), the striking thing about the verbal gauntlet is that the author assumes that the answer is a foregone conclusion. In fact, do we know the answer? Which is, as a result of actual tests, the safer and which is the more dangerous? Curiously, the assertion that it is far more dangerous to drive under the influence of marijuana has never been documented; it is assumed. After all, the role of alcohol in driving fatalities is only too well known; something like twenty-five thousand deaths every year from automobile accidents can more or less be directly attributed to the overindulgence of liquor. The reasoning is that if alcohol is dangerous, marijuana must, of necessity, be worse, because it is legally prohibited; moreover, the results of the two together can only be additive.
The only tests done on driving skills was completed a few months after the Boston experiments in the state of Washington. A team of researchers, including Alfred Crancer of the Washington State Department of Motor Vehicles, and James Dille, Chairman of University of Washington's Department of Pharmacology, conducted an experiment on simulated driving skills.[12] (Tests on actual driving conditions are planned.) The various driving functions were accelerator, signal, brake, speedometer, steering, and total test score; a total of 405 checks were made throughout the course of the entire experiment, so that a subject's total number of errors could range, theoretically, from zero to 405. Subjects were experienced marijuana users who were also acquainted with the liquor intoxication. They were administered the test (1) high on marijuana
Using cannabis for pulp and fiber would seriously help with 'environmental' factors. MJ did get a bumb rap and looking back at William R. Hurst et. al. combined with racism and fear mongering we can now see that it was quite irrational to ban it (no, I don't smoke weed). If you're going to have cigs and alcohol, logically there's no reason not to have weed and tax the hell out of it. Although, it is a weed and easier to grow yourself than it is to make beer, but still. Yes it's hypocritical, but the real tragedy is that we can't harness the plant for its other uses besides getting high.
rtjackson4
New member
Wow...now that is interesting.
Now what is the reasoning behind the Asprin answer?
Now what is the reasoning behind the Asprin answer?
Blake Jones
New member
That obviously isn't the point of the poll. If you read it properly (I'm assuming literally, as I'm not the OP) it is obviously about comparing drugs, their illegality/legality and deaths caused by taking them. Savings lives doesn't appear to be even mentioned. Nicotine has probably saved people from obesity, diabetes and other weight related diseases due to curbing appetites. That aspect is clearly not relevant and thus why it probably wasn't included in the thread.
But the poll is still interesting. The drugs that we can buy freely and legally kill more people then cannabis.
But the poll is still interesting. The drugs that we can buy freely and legally kill more people then cannabis.
nicotine isn't what kills, but I see your point.
Yeah. Screwey isn't it?
That's the Government for you, which is what this is all about.
Legalizing it would take care of the reasons why they banned it in the first place, which is the preparation process (drug lorRAB, etc)....
But that's all that propaganda Bull **** for ya.
Irony always cracks me up.....
Yeah. Screwey isn't it?
That's the Government for you, which is what this is all about.
Legalizing it would take care of the reasons why they banned it in the first place, which is the preparation process (drug lorRAB, etc)....
But that's all that propaganda Bull **** for ya.
Irony always cracks me up.....
Yes I agree, and never said it wasn't
I don't know if there is any credible data on that, but there are many things that people consume that is bad for them, including coffee. MJ is very good for those with cancer and I don't know why it's not more freely available for chemo patients.
I don't know if there is any credible data on that, but there are many things that people consume that is bad for them, including coffee. MJ is very good for those with cancer and I don't know why it's not more freely available for chemo patients.
Though it is clear that Drug C, presumably tobacco with Nicotene, causes more deaths than the other drugs, the number of deaths is not the only issue I would look at when dealing with the legality of a drug. There are many things that people do that precipitate their own death - including eating fatty fooRAB. I think that people have the right to ruin their health for pleasure if they so please. The same is true for Nicotene. As with fatty fooRAB, people know the risk of cigarette smoking. If they do it anyway, then their death is their own fault. I would, however, like to see people's lifestyles affecting their health insurance rates so that smokers and those that lead otherwise unhealthy lifestyles should pay higher rates.
The main criteria I would look at when addressing the legality of a drug is its addictability and its affect on people's judgement and behavior. Many of the illegal drugs are addictive and cause the person influenced by that drug to severely loose a good sense of judgment in behavior. Sure, there are some people who are capable of using drugs responsibly, but laws have to keep in mind societies in general - not the rare responsible user in this case.
Otherwise, there are drugs that can become addictive if overused and do somewhat affect behavior, but not to the degree that it is usually dangerous. These include alcohol and marijuana. I would probably keep these legal. Nicotene, though it can be addictive, certainly does not seem to show any major impairment in judgement. I would keep it legal, despite its health risks.
The main criteria I would look at when addressing the legality of a drug is its addictability and its affect on people's judgement and behavior. Many of the illegal drugs are addictive and cause the person influenced by that drug to severely loose a good sense of judgment in behavior. Sure, there are some people who are capable of using drugs responsibly, but laws have to keep in mind societies in general - not the rare responsible user in this case.
Otherwise, there are drugs that can become addictive if overused and do somewhat affect behavior, but not to the degree that it is usually dangerous. These include alcohol and marijuana. I would probably keep these legal. Nicotene, though it can be addictive, certainly does not seem to show any major impairment in judgement. I would keep it legal, despite its health risks.