Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mooface]

It's just far too old in my opinion. The idea that you'd get up, go to work, come home and then would have to break the law to have a beer while you watched a film or have some wine with your meal is utterly ridiculous to me.

this just made me think of another point (which has already been touched on but oh well):
if it's illegal for you to drink alcohol then there is almost no way you are going to treat it as something normal.  the only way you will drink it before you turn 21 will probably be by going to house parties and drinking as much of it as you can, because it is a novelty.  you never get an ingrained concept of just sitting down and having an alcoholic drink with your food, or at a calm social gathering with friends.  this makes it far more likely that not only will you abuse alcohol when you are younger, you will continue to abuse it even once you are legal to drink because that is the only way you have experienced drinking alcohol before. 

this is painfully obvious with american college students here in rome.  even though they are living in a culture where most drinking is done in a relaxed setting that is not centered around getting drunk (such as having aperitivo or having a glass of wine with dinner) they seem to feel like they have to drink as much as possible every time they go out.  somehow, i feel as if they had grown up with it being normal to be able to order a beer with their meal when going out to eat then they might be more inclined to approach drinking in a different manner.

[Patrick]

You should have to be a lot, lot, lot older to buy a gun. They need to bring that age requirement up by a decade or so.

Heh, here's where we start the gun control debate. Second Amendment #4 lyfe

[Switchblade]

Yeah, let's not start on that one. I've seen far too many flame wars kick off over that particular topic.

[0bsessions]

Yeah, I've been afraid of this for like three pages. This thread is getting entirely too political. We should either veer back to the subject of "how do you know you're getting old" or just lock this fucking waste of a thread (This thread has gotten progressively more idiotic for a few pages now).

[Switchblade]

I wouldn't go that far... There's nothing wrong with a little bit of politics here and there, and I'm yet to see anyone actually be "idiotic".

Believe me, this thread is a haven of sanity and rational discourse in the greater madness of the internet. It's a lot like being in a Lovecraft novel.

[Patrick]

So we want to talk about politics. I haven't seen any personal attacks or "You are wrong and that is that" crap in the political debate that this thread has turned into. If you ask me, I think the thread has greatly improved, because while we were on the subject of parenting, it was nothing but a couple of people saying "I think you're wrong, this is why, conversation OVER" for two pages.

[jhocking]

Well that's not saying much, considering the discussion of parenting was itself an annoying digression from the topic of the thread.

[pilsner]

You better listen to the OP folks.  He could always change the thread subject to "Everyone who posted here is a douche other than myself."

[0bsessions]

So we want to talk about politics. I haven't seen any personal attacks or "You are wrong and that is that" crap in the political debate that this thread has turned into. If you ask me, I think the thread has greatly improved, because while we were on the subject of parenting, it was nothing but a couple of people saying "I think you're wrong, this is why, conversation OVER" for two pages.

We also had a big fuss about what to address people as and people bitching back and forth at each other about other stuff. A little politics is fine here and there, but shit like "gun control debate" is asking for a fucking shit storm of heat, especially when we were just warned not to debate that shit here not even two months ago (The school shooting thread). This is seriously going to lead down a path we do not fucking need. Enough people have been walking on pins and needles in this thread as is.

[jhocking]

The point I was making is that it is absolutely bizarro world ridiculous to think that age at which you are allowed to purchase a gun has anything to do with the drinking age being at 21.

I don't see why that is ridiculous. Only a Nazi would fail to see the connection.

[jhocking]

I worship Hitler.

[Switchblade]

Well that's not saying much, considering the discussion of parenting was itself an annoying digression from the topic of the thread.

Okay, well, on-topic then, one of the important things signifying age and maturity, I think, is the ability to have a discussion about issues that are potentially sensitive and still manage to keep it all civil and sensible.

Obsessions, I really mean no offense by this, but I think that exclaiming "OH NO we can't talk about politics! It's a sensitive issue!" every time a thread so much as hints that it might be headed in that direction is counter-productive. What else are we supposed to do? Swap vaguely interesting news stories that are unusual in some way? Pose in a variety of retro-themed clothing? Chime in on how much we think dogs are awesome? Discuss the unique aroma of our most recent farts? If we avoid anything that might be in even the faintest way slightly political, then this board becomes a bland zone of people bleating out the most monotonous, inane shit because we aren't allowed to discuss the interesting stuff that's going on in the world in case we offend somebody.

It's all very well and good trying to avoid stepping on each others' toes, but in the end it's impossible to entirely avoid saying something that somebody else disagrees with. I like unbaked cookie dough, for example. I'd wager that a lot of people do. But it's pretty much inevitable that somewhere out there is somebody who simply hates cookie dough, and disagrees with my assessment that it is (in my sincere opinion) yummy.

In the end, it's better to just say "screw it" and chat about whatever we want to (within reason) and use our differences of opinion as raw material for an enlightening and interesting discourse, as opposed to turning it into fuel for a flame war. You disagree with my opinion - that's fine. So long as we both try not to be dicks about it, I don't see the problem. It's nice that we can honestly look at most of the members of this board and say "I trust you not to be an asshole".

That said, the issue of gun control really is one of those cases where I can count the number of threads I've seen on the subject that remained rational and level-headed for long on one hand, so if we are going to discuss it, we really should tread carefully....

Also, to balance the unrelenting seriousness of this post, boingo boingo whoopsee knickers. (Apologies to Yahtzee)

[jhocking]

That said, the issue of gun control really is one of those cases where I think Hitler had it right.

[Switchblade]

You know who else edited quotes from other people's posts to include hitler-worship? HITLER DID.

[jhocking]

i... worship... HITLER

[Sox]

I noticed that many 'generation divides' can be marked through lists of your favourite childhood TV shows.  All these young folks today, wearing T-shirts with the ThunderCats logo? Can't even sing the theme song, or name all of the Thunderians living on Third Earth! Poseurs!

Of course, this method is not as reliable as it used to be, thanks to the use of the internet in order to easily obtain all these old shows. Nowadays, a persons favourite videogames and sitcoms are much better indicators of age.

[0bsessions]

Blah blah blah politics are fun blah blah but I apparently agree with you anyway.

Seriously, what was the point of that even? I never said politics are bad and should be avoided at all costs, I said that certain political subjects are a disaster waiting to happen...and then you pretty much backed up my argument. A gun control debate will, nine times out of ten, devolve into a pissing match between liberal and conservative viewpoints. This entire thread has been about 90% pissing match and it should be pretty obvious that with the overall tone of said thread, a subject like that is only going to get worse. I mean, fuck, it should be obvious based simply off of the sheer polarization of people on even discussing the idea of maybe considering talking about the possibility of discussing gun control.

That in its own should be enough, but I also submit exhibit B:

FORUM RULES

RELIGION AND POLITICS:

Threads about religion & politics are undesireable in this forum because they are two topics that make Jeph angry/set off his depression. He has specifically asked us to kill these kinds of topics, especially if they are veering into argumentative or "DOOOOM!" modes.

If you would like to talk about these topics then I am sure that there are plenty of other places you can do it. There are many fine political and religious sites around, some of which are sure to have forums almost guaranteed to be politics/religion friendly.

If the forum admin says "hey, don't do that shit," I tend to think "hey, I better not do that shit. Especially when it's a rule that's widely known to have been passed down by the dude with his finger hovering over the "delete entire fucking forum" button.

[RedLion]

You know who stifled political discussion with warning of it being "dangerous"?

JEAN-BEDEL BOKASSA, dictator of the Central African Republic.

Probably Hitler, too.

Really though-- I understand the reason for the aversion to talking about things like politics and religion, but we've only been discussing a few contentious topics in here. It's had nothing to do with political parties or idologies, and I think everyone's been relatively civil thus far. It can't hurt to have a semi-intelligent discussion about things that actually are important.

[jhocking]

I miss the Nazis.

[Patrick]

GUYS

We're having a flamewar over flamewars. DO YOU NOT SEE HOW FUCKING IDIOTIC THIS IS.

[jhocking]

GUYS

We're having a lovefest over Hitler. DO YOU NOT SEE HOW COMPLETELY OFFENSIVE THIS IS.

[0bsessions]

herpes isn't really all that bad

[Patrick]

PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS

[Sox]

If (like Jhocking) you are old enough to remember Hitlers sweet embrace, you KNOW you're pretty old.

[Barmymoo]

Wow, I'm not around for two days and look at how much I miss. Teach me not to use my study periods for study instead of forumming, I guess!

Jill, maybe I wasn't clear enough. The staff at my college ask us to call them by their first names. It's college policy, I think the reasoning behind it is that if they treat us like young adults, we'll act like human beings (it doesn't always work, but I think it does help).

I would never, ever call a teacher by their first name if they had not asked me to. I'm good friends with an ex-teacher, we email regularly and meet up whenever I'm in the area, and I still call her (and think of her as) Miss Roberts.

Actually, I did just think of an instance where I refused to call a teacher by their name. I had a drama teacher who insisted on calling me Mavis (that is not my name. It's not even similar to my name. It wasn't a mistake, or a cute nickname, it was deliberately irritating). I asked him several times not to, politely, and then when he carried on doing so I started calling him Derek. He got the message, and we went back to real names.

On the respect issue in general, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I agree that everyone deserves respect until they do something to prove otherwise. At the same time, I don't think that anyone deserves more respect than anyone else purely on grounds of age, income or anything similar. I respect many people because they are particularly good at what they do, or are very nice or impressive people, or have managed to cope with difficult circumstances. I think respect is both an inherent right and also earned, and the best bet is to assume that someone does deserve a level of respect (not boot-licking, crawling respect, just common courtesy).

I've only skim-read the alcohol debate but it seems to me that opinions are differing along vaguely geographical lines. I've never been to the USA or anywhere outside of Western Europe, so I can't comment on those places, but the drinking limit in the UK doesn't seem to be overly observed. I'm an oddity amongst my friends because I don't, and never have, drink any alcohol. I've only met three or four people between the ages of about 11 and 17 who haven't drunk at some point. When I'm asked why I don't drink, "it's not legal" is never my answer because to be honest, most people don't seem to remember there's an age limit.

A friend who lives partly in Holland and partly in England says that in Holland, where the limits for most things are lower and cannabis (I think) is legal, people are more sensible with drugs and alcohol. I'm not convinced it's possible to be sensible with cannabis unless you don't touch the stuff but I have a zero-tolerance approach to drugs. I suppose it's like the prostitution argument: it's easier to regulate something if it's legalised. But there has to be a sensible threashold below which it's unacceptable to go.

And it's fairly easy to lower an age limit but very hard to raise it, as proven by the recent change in law in the UK. You now have to be 18 to buy cigarettes et al, whereas you used to need to be 16. From the people I know at school and college, no one has taken the blindest bit of notice. I've been with 16 year old friends who have bought cigarettes without any trouble. I'm not in favour of this either, I'm just citing it as an example of how it can be hard to reverse a lower limit.

Like I said, I've never drunk so I'm fairly hazy about the different types of alcohol. But when I've seen people at parties, I've noticed that the ones who end up trashed are the ones who have been drinking vodka and other similar things. The ones going slowly with a beer seem to be fine. How about doing it the way the German government do and having different age limits depending on alcohol content and the likelihood of ending up vomiting in a bush?

I hate the pressure I sometimes get from friends who find it odd that I don't drink. None of my close friends do it, but some people who don't realise how big a thing this is for me will say things like "on your birthday, we're going out and you're going to get wasted". No, no I am not. And I will not be going out with you on my birthday, now that I know I can't trust you to respect my choices. Incidentally, I'm also vegetarian and a friend once tried to force a ham sandwich into my mouth. We're not in touch any more.

I can see the point that's being made about 21 being too old. Yes, it seems odd that you can legally be a parent to a four year old (I'm not sure what the age of consent is in places with a 21 drinking age, so I'm going with the UK's 16) but not drink a beer. But then again, I know many many 18, 19, 20 year olds who I wouldn't trust sober. Adding alcohol into the mix seems like a bad idea. You can't make laws to suit a minority who will follow them, they're designed to punish the ones who don't. So they have to go with the lowest common denominator.

Also, please don't get this forum locked. It was quite interesting til you brought Hitler into it (which could also be said for my history class, but that's another subject).

And I've just thought of a big one for the OP: gardening. I've yet to meet someone my age who likes it. I've yet to meet someone my mother's age who does not. All of the latter group say they didn't when they were my age. Is it hormonal? Do I have a dormant gardening gene that's going to kick in when I'm 30? Heaven forbid.

[pilsner]

I know folks in their mid to late 20s who like gardening.  Or at least the idea of gardening (gardening in the city can be challenging ... though not impossible).  Also, I've lost track of how many women I know in their late 20s, professionals, who are knitting or chrocheting.  I can't wait for pipe smoking to come back.  Also:  capes.

[a pack of wolves]

I can see the point that's being made about 21 being too old. Yes, it seems odd that you can legally be a parent to a four year old (I'm not sure what the age of consent is in places with a 21 drinking age, so I'm going with the UK's 16) but not drink a beer. But then again, I know many many 18, 19, 20 year olds who I wouldn't trust sober. Adding alcohol into the mix seems like a bad idea. You can't make laws to suit a minority who will follow them, they're designed to punish the ones who don't. So they have to go with the lowest common denominator.

I know plenty of people in their twenties and thirties I wouldn't trust sober. If you want to go with the lowest common denominator you'd have to ban alcohol outright. As well as driving, contact sports and anything else potentially harmful. Not really a very good idea. Once you're an adult you have to take responsibility for your own choices, and the law should not prevent you from doing anything that might be bad for you.

[0bsessions]

I've got a better idea:

Underagers: Sack up.

[pilsner]

Jeph smokes a pipe.

I'm waiting for Snuff to come back.

We might not be talking about the same sort of pipe.  Also, I thought you were off inhalants.

[jhocking]

Is it possible to set a word filter for just a single thread? I suggest replacing any instance of "alcohol" in this thread with "Hitler worship."

[Scandanavian War Machine]

seconded!

[onewheelwizzard]

I'm not convinced it's possible to be sensible with cannabis unless you don't touch the stuff but I have a zero-tolerance approach to drugs.

::wince:: You really don't believe it's possible to safely and responsibly use cannabis?  Yeesh.

With all the talk of alcohol and the problems it causes on this thread, that one seems like a no-brainer by comparison.

[calenlass]

Also, I've lost track of how many women I know in their late 20s, professionals, who are knitting or chrocheting.  I can't wait for pipe smoking to come back.  Also:  capes.

Knitting is boring. How many women do you know who do this?


(I really like capes. I was thinking about putting one on my project list some time, but that is long enough already.)

[pilsner]

None, but then looms are really hard to use on a crowded subway.

[Lines]

I know someone who spins and weaves. She's all around a pretty cool lady.

[calenlass]

(Dawg that is a spinning wheel, not a loom. Plus drop spindles are pretty good on busses, at least, and they do the same thing. I have never tried it on the train. I think this would be hard to take anywhere, personally.)

[0bsessions]

::wince:: You really don't believe it's possible to safely and responsibly use cannabis?  Yeesh.

With all the talk of alcohol and the problems it causes on this thread, that one seems like a no-brainer by comparison.

Seconded. I've shown a rather conservative stance on the alcohol laws, but I think laws regarding pot are absolutely ridiculous. It's cheaper to make than booze, less damaging than booze and is all in all much safer than booze.

[Barmymoo]

Probably so, but I'm against anything that alters my mind and/or chemical structure more significantly than chocolate. I probably err too much on the side of caution, but I've heard some pretty scary tales about cannabis that may or may not be true and I prefer to keep my brain unmushed.

Having said that, I agree that the law can be a little bizarre. I find it strange that here in the UK, the guideline sentencing for actual bodily harm is a maximum of 6 months imprisonment, but for possession of cannabis you can get 2 years. Admittedly you're unlikely to, but it depends on the judge. The fact is that assaulting someone by definition hurts someone else. Possessing cannabis hurts only the user (providing they don't commit a different crime because of the drug) and therefore surely the penalty should be less harsh? Like someone said earlier, the law shouldn't be preventing adults from making stupid decisions.

Edit: gah I clearly need more sleep. How is it possible to read "2 years" and write "14 years"?

[0bsessions]

To my knowledge, pot doesn't have any actual effect on your brain and about 90% of all shit you hear is propaganda to make anti-marijuana laws look slightly less ridiculous than they are. Even if it does affect it, it's not anywhere near as bad as alcohol.

[Switchblade]

Seconded. I've shown a rather conservative stance on the alcohol laws, but I think laws regarding pot are absolutely ridiculous. It's cheaper to make than booze, less damaging than booze and is all in all much safer than booze.

I'm afraid that if you think that, you're wrong. The information I've gathered on the subject (and that's a lot - I've read British Medical Journal articles on this particular subject in fact) concerning weed agrees that it's more addictive than Alcohol (Hitler worship), and has far more severe long-term health implications. Alcohol really only affects you in the short term, unless you drink enough to poison you in one go, or keep drinking consistently for so long that your liver just gives up.

Weed, on the other hand, can addict with a much smaller dosage than alcohol, and puts about five times the carcinogens, tar and other crap that you get in cigarettes into you on top.

So no, it's not less damaging or safer than booze. Weed is way worse for you, and way more addictive. Whoever convinced you otherwise either has their facts muddled up, or else was outright lying to you I'm afraid.

Personally, I do think that the marijuana laws in the States are overly draconian on the subject - if people want to fuck up their brains, I say we should let them - But please don't make the mistake of assuming that it's 90% propoganda. Weed REALLY IS as bad as people say it is, and worse.

[Barmymoo]

My main problem with it is that we don't know enough about it.

Alcohol has been around a long time. OK, it's getting generally stronger (or the strong stuff is more easily available, I'm not sure which) but at least we know what's going on with it. Cannabis is different. Because it's illegal in most places, there aren't many tests being done and it's gradually coming to light that there may be bigger problems caused by long term use than anyone ever guessed.

Maybe it is propoganda. But the thing is, if there's a risk that inhaling the smoke of a burning plant rolled up in some paper might decrease my chances of reaching 80 and still having a fully functioning brain, then I'll not take it, thanks. Whether or not it should be illegal for me to take that chance, I'm not sure. We have many debates about it in Law, but we've never come to a conclusion.

[calenlass]

See and here I thought the tar came from shit they put in cigarettes as fillers. Is there tar in cannibis? I don't think so. At least, chemically speaking, I am pretty sure it is all mostly cellulose and stuff. And the cops from the drug unit who gave presentations every month or so at my high school said weed was dangerous because it isn't addictive, and thus you feel you can safely carry on smoking as much as you want.



I could be wrong, I guess.

[Switchblade]

Actually, the "tar" is partially-burnt and caramelized sap and resin released when the leafs burn. Cannabis contains about five times as much as tobacco.

As for the cops saying it's not addictive - that conflicts with a lot of what I've read and researched on the topic. As I understand it, cannabis causes pretty massive neurochemical shifts when you smoke it. Repeated exposure to these shifts trick the brain into thinking that its own natural levels are off, and it adjusts them. The result is that when you aren't "on", the brain's experiencing a shortfall of those specific chemicals.

That's the other danger behind weed, though. There's so much conflicting information out there about it - the dealers and enthusiasts constantly flood the air with their own positive propoganda, and play down the medical dangers, and the medics and law-makers spread the negative press about it. Unless you spend a LOT of time researching it, you can get entirely the wrong impression.

I have two reasons for avoiding the stuff like the plague -

one; I'm more inclined to trust the word of a doctor who's primary concern is my health and safety, than I am the word of a guy who's trying to push the stuff so he can profit.
two; I feel disinclined to trust my health with something so barely-understood. I'd rather stick to alcohol, the benefits and drawbacks of which are well-documented, than try something so controversial and potentially dangerous, especially when it's illegal. The way I see it, better the legal not-very-evil-at-all that you know, than the illegal potentially-very-evil-indeed that you don't.

[Amaroq]

Well said, Switchblade.

The fact is, I've known some people who seemed like they were cannabis users the same way I'm an alchohol user: occasionally, in moderation, for enjoyment, and not to excess. These people have, in my opinion, shown no negative long-term effects.

However, I've also seen alchohol addiction close-up, and been close friends with people who seemed cannabis-addicted to me: they started out occasional users, but eventually they smoked every day, several times a day, and more than once I heard the refrain

"We're not addicted. We could stop anytime!"

"We just don't want to!"

Which sounds a heck of a lot like what the alchoholic in my life would say about alchohol.

More worrisome to me was the fact that the cannabis-addicts, in my experience, had started out as feeling very intelligent and articulate, and became less so over time, as well as less motivated to do anything other than sit around and smoke out.

Nope, that's no medical study, and I'm not qualified to diagnose addiction medically - but remember, I spent something like ten years being the sober guy around a bunch of druggies. I'm not coming to these conclusions from acquaintance with a one or two stereotypical stoners, but from long-term observation of people whom I considered good friends over many years.

Onewheelwizzard, your post back at the top of pg6 was very well articulated. I particularly like the way you came at it from your personal experience; that really helped it feel not-preachy. I hope I'm doing as well; you set a great standard for having a real conversation and exchange of views, rather than a debate.

I've been with friends who said that they felt that they had a great spiritual awakening while under the influence. However, none of them have been able to articulate what that was to me, either under the influence or after. I wouldn't describe them as being more "spiritually aware" after either, but keep in mind that these were people I already liked and respected. It sounds like your experience was a bit more concrete, and perhaps subtly different; to my mind "personal development" and "spiritual awakening" are very different feelings.

I've also sat with people who were just having fun, and didn't seem to be getting any spiritual or mental development, just a good time; just treating it like a recreational experience. "Oooh, look, sparkles!"

I've also talked people down out of a "bad trip" when their experiences were very terrifying for them. Regarding that latter, it certainly, in my mind, helps to go into them without hesitancy or fear, in a comfortable or naturally beautiful environment, and surrounded by people you trust, who won't fuck with you just to fuck with you.

So, I'm not sure whether your experiences are generalizable to the idea that psychadelics have a universal power to do good - but I appreciate you sharing that feeling and putting it as well as you did!

[SonofZ3]

one; I'm more inclined to trust the word of a doctor who's primary concern is my health and safety, than I am the word of a guy who's trying to push the stuff so he can profit.
two; I feel disinclined to trust my health with something so barely-understood. I'd rather stick to alcohol, the benefits and drawbacks of which are well-documented, than try something so controversial and potentially dangerous, especially when it's illegal. The way I see it, better the legal not-very-evil-at-all that you know, than the illegal potentially-very-evil-indeed that you don't.

If you think doctors don't push drugs to get money from big pharmecutical companies then you're living in imaginary land my friend. At least here in the U.S. medical organizations and care providers get BIG MONEY for pushing certain drugs. Doctors are people too. People with irrational beliefs and opinions. There have been lawsuits here in America because certain doctors refuse to supply the plan-B contraceptive pill as a result of their religious convictions. They're looking out for their patients soul, not their body, a decision that hardly points toward a rational care for safety. The same sort of opinionated thinking is used in the villification of pot.

The whole argument that alcohol is less dangerous seems ridiculous as well. First hand experience with pot heads and drunks can attest to this. I've never met a pot head who beats his girlfriend when high, pushes holes in windows or walls, starts fights in bars ect. I've met a lot of drunks that are just as dangerous to others as they are to themselves. When it comes right down to it alcohol makes a lot of money for the government and is socially acceptable. Marijuana makes an obscene ammount of money for the government by being illegal, so it will stay that way.

Also, the idea that just because something is illegal that it is absolutely wrong or bad for you is just plain stupid. In about 2 minutes of thought you should be ablet o come up with myriad examples of things that have been legal and terrible, or illegal and correct. Laws are dynamic, and they do not always reflect what is right and wrong.

[RedLion]

As someone who has drank and smoked pot in limited quantities in the past, I have to say that in my experience I've found at least part of what you claim to be wrong, Switchblade. Alcohol is much more dangerous in terms of how it affects you, in the short term at least. When you're high, you can still maintain a modicum of rational thought. Generally, you feel relaxed, a bit hungry and all around contented, with a tendency to laugh at stupid things. With alcohol, though, drink enough and you don't "feel" anything; you're just blacked out until you wake up the next morning on the bathroom floor. That's never happened to me, but it's happened to plenty of people I know. Alcohol has a much higher potential for long-term addiction, because while people who smoke in response to emotional stress do so just to get rid of tension, most people who drink for that same reason do so to get completely plastered and get to the point where they're not consciously in control of their body at all.

It's great that you've read so much on this, but when it comes to the issue of drugs like pot and LSD, there are plenty of scientists and doctors who have vested interests in perpetuating the exaggerated dangers of the drugs. I don't think anyone will argue that something like crack, heroine and meth are harmless or nonaddictive. There's a general consensus that they generally are. But pot? Not really. What about people entering their 50's or 60's now, who were part of the 60's movements and were perpetually smoking a joint? Why haven't we seen massive health repercussions with these people? I know the THC in today's marijuana is astronomically higher than it was back then, but most people smoke in moderation nowadays, while back then for a lot of people it was a daily, habitual thing, like drinking a can of pop.

[Scandanavian War Machine]

-my dad has smoked pot almost every day since he was 16 and he's totally fine. hell, he's a fucking athlete.

-my friend johnny is only 20, gets blackout drunk everyday he can afford to and he's a fucking babbling retard now.

i think pot is probably ok.

[a pack of wolves]

I know the THC in today's marijuana is astronomically higher than it was back then, but most people smoke in moderation nowadays, while back then for a lot of people it was a daily, habitual thing, like drinking a can of pop.

Maybe the people you know only smoke in moderation but I've known a lot who smoke every single day, and plenty who're basically permanently stoned. The good old wake and bake technique. Simply smoking every day isn't necessarily a bad thing any more than drinking every day is, but I've known a fair few people who've screwed their lives up a fair bit on account of getting high all the time. But I've known people who've fucked up because of all kinds of things. Getting addicted to videogames for example, and that isn't a good reason to control the supply of them.

[tania]

i'll pretty much always defend the idea that people should have the right to put any drug they'd like into their body as long as it doesn't hurt others but i'm not so sure alcohol fits that criteria. a substantial amount of fatal car accidents in the states are the result of drunk driving. alcoholism is one of the biggest factors in spousal abuse. there is a huge correlation between homicide or assault offenders and whether or not they were drinking at the time they committed the offense. and so on.

i don't actually smoke pot at all and yeah, i understand there's just as many people who abuse alcohol as there are people who are intelligent and responsible but really, i find it hard to believe pot is a worse drug than alcohol.

[Switchblade]

To date, everybody I've known who smoked weed wound up doing one of two things:

1: quitting before it became a problem.

2: getting hooked and dropping out.

There have been far more of the latter than of the former. I'm yet to encounter anybody who smoked it on a regular basis and wasn't affected by it in some fairly significant way.

while it may be to some extent true that quote: "medical organizations and care providers get BIG MONEY for pushing certain drugs" I think I should point out that I'm not aware of any medication designed for weaning people off cannabis. Heroin, yes, there are plenty of mild opiates designed to wean people off Heroin and suchlike, but there aren't such medicines around for Marijuana (to my knowledge). As such, it's difficult for pharmaceutical companies to make a profit off helping people quit cannabis addiction, because there's no product they can sell for that purpose.

So, if there's no drug being sold to help people quit, and therefore no money being thrown at medical organizations to promote certain products, then ulterior motive goes out the window. With no incentive, those medical groups fall back on the old standby of actually recommending what's best for the patient's mental and physical health.

I'm all for letting people fuck up their own brains and lives if they so want. It means that they aren't competing with people like me, which makes my life easier. I do, however, think that it's vitally important that people be presented with ALL the facts so that they can make their decision with all of the evidence in front of them. That way, we can reasonably blame their own stupidity rather than misinformation or lack of clear facts.

And let's just say that when it comes to trusting information that is given to me, I tend to feel more secure placing my faith in the say-so of a law-abiding, intellectual professional than in the say so of an addict or dealer, either one of which is willfully breaking the law. It's Occam's razor again. I can either make the far-fetched and paranoid assumption that every doctor and medical paper in the world is out to stop me from having fun for no good reason, or make the not-very-far-fetched-at-all and quite reasonable assumption that marijuana is actually bad for me, and that the people who are promoting it are doing so because they want to sell it and get rich.