Smoking Weed/ your thoughts?

Discussion in 'The Guru's Pub' started by airbud7, Feb 22, 2017.

  1. cowie

    cowie Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,801
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    GTX
    who believes in bayer? aspirin kills more then a few hundred a year.
    I don't know who mentioned them in the first place but they brought Monsanto last year so you know its a total suck balls event with them having everyone in their pockets all over the place.
    like who don't have aspirin Tylenol or advil in there house and 8 out of ten times you could smoke a jay and be just as good.
    man my Chamomile tea would be better for minor aliments it grows like weeds just dry and make a tea better then that crap in a bottle
     
  2. stevevnicks

    stevevnicks Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Don't need one
    The obvious answer would be to legalise or decriminalize weed/hash and to give the local tax it creates for each town/village/state to their local police force to use the extra money for combating hard drugs and the violent crime that hard drugs bring to each town\village\state and extra police on the streets, also maybe give the local councils a cut to help improve their towns/village/state.

    My question is why not at least give it try, see how things go, like a test trial run? Rather than the arm chair experts saying no no no it won't work.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2017
  3. JaxMacFL

    JaxMacFL Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    47
    GPU:
    Titan X (pascal)
    The ATF will cave under the pressure of all the big money people in the alcohol and tobacco industry just like when there was numerous threats against the gasoline big spenders:

    http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=785

    It is not the product you have to worry about, it is the competition!!!
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2017
  4. Stormyandcold

    Stormyandcold Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,791
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    MSI GTX1070 Gaming X
    Canada just legalised it. 4 Plants max for personal use.
     

  5. kanej2007

    kanej2007 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1080 TI 11GB
    Now THAT'S the spirit. :)
     
  6. busboi

    busboi Member

    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA SC 1080GTX
    first thing I thought of when i read your post, "tell me your name horse master and I shall tell you mine," Gimli son of Gloin, LOTR.

    Weed should be legal for recreational use and medical research.
     
  7. TekkMarine

    TekkMarine Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA 980Ti GTX SC
    As a recreational drug or for medicine? Hearing more cases of cancer suffers turning to concentrated oils for treatment. Using it in a sense to get "high!?" a load more safer than cigarettes. If you have an addictive tenancies I would steer clear of pot, it was real tough giving it up.
     
  8. 0blivious

    0blivious Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,118
    Likes Received:
    8
    GPU:
    MSi 1070 X / 970 / 780Ti
    The Precious. Been legal here for a couple years (we and CO were 1st in Nation) and it's working fantastic. The state is raking in tax (about 40% of sale is tax) and still the prices (listed above in another post) have dipped well below what blackmarket prices were in the past. Same thing for Colorado and I presume how it should be for the other states that joined us later.

    I hope you guys get there in Nebraska too! :smoke:
     
  9. viren

    viren Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,443
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 960
    Don't drink and drive smoke weed and fly...
     
  10. Loobyluggs

    Loobyluggs Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    EVGA 1070 FTW
    That is up to the medical community with approved science to form a treatment for a condition.

    If a cancer patients' team of oncological doctors create a form of treatment to cure someone of cancer - they have my support.

    If, however, someone believes that because someone with cancer gets a form of treatment, that they should get access to the same treatment for a completely different medical condition that has NOT been approved by an medical experts in the slightest, then again: no.

    It is self-medication, with nothing but 'a man down the pub told me' facts behind it.

    If a doctor says to take it: they will prescribe the drugs (Sativex is one of them) and you will take the drug to treat whatever the condition is. They are the experts, and it is them who I support fully with decades of research behind them. Sorry if you do not like that completely reasonable or irrefutable logic, I really do, but you are not arguing with me, but arguing with a substantial amount of proof and research. Extremely substantial.
     

  11. Darkest

    Darkest Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,044
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    HD7950

    You take three weeks to formulate a response and you're still spouting Orwellian rhetoric, it's astounding how arrogant a person has to be to genuinely believe that their opinion is somehow "irrefutable" when it comes to life choices and individual rights.

    I know I said I wouldn't be bothering with you, but some things are just too much.
     
  12. cowie

    cowie Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,801
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    GTX
    dude just get Sativex out of your head that digs you in deep with your argument.
    that's like making a 300 million dollar contraption the take out your garbage

    if a doctor says it should be the next thing out of your head

    doctors will recommend chemo for your 75 year old mother
     
  13. Loobyluggs

    Loobyluggs Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    EVGA 1070 FTW
    It is not my opinion. It is fact.

    2+2=4. It does not equal 7 or the square root of 7,855,478,547,855,411,258 and it most certainly does not equal Orange Cat or Origami.

    It is not abstraction, opinion or belief to say that 2+2=4, it is a provable and testable fact.

    IF you believe that illegal, toxic substances will cure you of some aliment, you have my support to have that belief. IF you think that the law should be changed to encompass your belief to override fact, or impose your belief system onto mine, you do not have my support.

    In other words, I fully support your right to have a belief system, but not if it means overthrowing everyone else's to obtain it.

    The chemical element contained in drugs such as Sativex and other Nabiximols took a very long time to research and produce, for the purposes of treating certain conditions.
    IF there are other conditions that do not have medical research apportioned to them, what are these conditions? What research has been done? Have they looked at Nabiximols? If not, why? Where is the research being conducted? By whom? Are there any case studies to read up on? Which scientific publications were they submitted to? Is there any contradicting research?

    See? Plenty of reasonable questions to ask there. Facts are facts 'sir.

    It is NOT my opinion. It is a fact which I accept as true by the existence of scientific research and evidence.

    The rights of the individual in this case are simple. If can either accept the facts, or not. If you accept the facts, there are lots of people conducting research all over the world on this. If you do not accept the facts, then the remainder of the population does not condone their individual rights be abused to encompass your beliefs.

    That's how society works "...The needs of the many...".
     
  14. Darkest

    Darkest Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,044
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    HD7950
    More of the same.

    You really lack self awareness, half of what you're harping on about is entirely irrelevant. You're talking about curtailing peoples rights because you think that people should be governed by the heavy handed. You seem to think that nobody should have choices outside of those sanctioned by the powers that be, and that everybody should blindly believe what they're told without question. You clearly lack the understanding of what individual rights are, as you seem to think that by some guy down the street having access to marijuana that you will also be forced to imbibe the drug. It's your individual right to not use it, nobody is going to force it on you just like nobody randomly forces you to eat buckets of KFC.

    Regardless, touching on the "Science" argument you insist on pushing. While scientific testing is important, where exactly does the public fit in there? Which studies are correct or incorrect? The ones paid for by big pharma companies? The ones funded by your countries Government? A large amount of research is funded and often includes bias based upon the moral judgements of the people supplying said funding. This happens in almost every field, finding genuinely trustworthy data is often more difficult than it should be. In some cases, Scientific testing is irrelevant for those who have experience of the drug. Especially when said testing is considerably behind where it should be due to heavy handed biases from many of our Governments. So which studies are the right ones? The ones the Government ultimately decides upon? It wasn't that long ago that a gentleman by the name of David Nutt was fired from his position as chief Government health advisor for telling the truth about drugs. So what we have in your ideal system, are Government sanctioned controls on drugs they know (or care) little about, while big pharma companies pay doctors to show bias in prescribing drugs. What an absolute utopia you're suggesting.

    You will only take what you view as properly sanctioned medication when you're in need of it? So you visit the doctor whenever you have mild pain or a headache, rather than simply buying something over the counter? I've dealt with extreme pain before, and regardless of whether or not it's anecdotal I can quite happily say that my experience with pot was far better than my experience with opiates. For one, it actually helped -- for two I was capable of stopping immediately with no withdrawal issues. That's without getting into the money I saved. A lot of current testing backs up my statement on pain relief, the magnitude of said pain relief may be up for debate.

    Also, what on earth are you waffling about regarding belief systems? You're injecting that nonsense of your own accord, the only thing I've ever stated is that the drug is less harmful than alcohol (fact, I know you think you like those), and that it should be legal.

    This entire tangent you periodically go on has little to do with the debate at hand with you, however. You act like this elsewhere on the forum, and it's really quite evident that it's mainly just self gratification on your behalf. You offer supreme arrogance in your deluded belief in your personal intellectualism. Once again, since you're going to insist on shifting the basis of your argument wherever you please, I am done. I shouldn't have taken the bait.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2017
  15. kegastaMmer

    kegastaMmer Master Guru

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    a cheap naked sub-heater
    when we find ourselves incompetent, we start grabbing straws. If you want to assume anyone here was saying 2+2=9 , well I'm actually sad for you.

    If you're thinking of the shares you might lose when the demand for prescription drugs falls, I'm actually angry at that.

    IF NONE of these scenarios matchup with you, I'm happy that you made us realize the strength of that screw-cork on a human mind :infinity:
     

  16. kastriot

    kastriot Master Guru

    Messages:
    860
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    Z-AMP.extr-GTX980 1.5GHz
    This thread was about smooking weed right?, well i never smoked weed in my life so i can't give you answer but i am sure those who did and there are 2 groups there with good and bad experience so i can tell that who had bad trip/experience never touched it again i know from some of my friends so i guess i am not qualified to tell you more :)
     
  17. Loobyluggs

    Loobyluggs Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    EVGA 1070 FTW
    No, I was drawing an analogy to explain the differences between what some people believe and what is fact. The goal was to stamp a framework out and forge a path of understanding on how society actually works versus idealism.

    I don't shares in any company, either. So if you believe I have screw-cork of a mind for thinking that just because an idealist believes the laws of a society should change without facts, or any form of process, then 'whatever'.

    And Darkest...if you think I honestly care about how others perceive me as an individual, you are absolutely right: I do not. However, you show a lack of faith in me as a person when you suggest that as a result of that I am just running around on these forums as a rogue element intent on destruction. Not the case, far from it. I just have to take a position on this which differs from yours at a reductive level, that's all sir.

    When you want to make changes to the law, you must look at all future impact on society and in the case of 'weed', the future is not good. There are medicinal benefits, yes - but these are for a few aliments and the drugs are available. This is a good thing. What is bad is 'self-medication' where some people will make claims that x,y&z are good under a,b&c so, as a result the entire legal system should be changed.

    I'm saying: lets do the research! If there are medicinal benefits which can be used to generate pharmaceuticals which Doctors can prescribe - that's what you want to have in society. You do not want to legalise a substance which can be used by people for the purposes of intoxication. Just to 'get high' or whatever. The least amount of intoxicating elements being used in society, the better the society.

    The argument that by making it legal helps more people than harms is fallacious.
     
  18. HeavyHemi

    HeavyHemi Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,263
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    GTX1080Ti
    In sum, you demand to define the parameters 'to create a framework' in an attempt to limit to discussion to where only your view of the 'facts' are valid. This is just you repeating your same mistakes using more words in an attempt to obfuscate that your argument is: I don't like any intoxicating substance and only my 'facts' matter'. This, despite that they are NOT facts, but merely your opinions clearly based on ignorance. The fact you admit you don't care what others think about you is a telling admission. Explain to us how putting people in prison for using a plant is less harmful than letting them use it. At least make an attempt to defend your 'facts'. Bloviating...wow.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
  19. SerotoNiN

    SerotoNiN Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,109
    Likes Received:
    16
    GPU:
    nVidia GTX 1070 8GB
    I've always wondered, if the people that smoke think it isn't a big deal, WTF do they care what other people think? Smokers spend too much time defending their habit to the point they come across as ashamed.

    It's ok for a smoker to push his agenda for legalization. But someone against it is met with anger and articles about how harmless weed is. Lol. Why can't both just stfu and do what they want? Seriously..

    Me? I smoked for years in my 20's. For me personally, it made me a waste of space. I gained weight, I only thought about smoking all day, everyday, when I wasn't and it made me extremely apathetic. I'm glad I got off of it. Now, does this mean everyone is this way that smokes? No. Everyone is different. Some get extreme motivation smoking.

    Smoke if you want, don't if you don't want. But both sides arguing over it's effects is pointless. Stoners are biased, they're going to defend their high no matter what. And nonsmokers are biased, they're going to defend clean living no matter what. Pointless argument because it's just two sets of agendas being pushed with no one actually listening to the other; everyone just waits to get their say in.
     
  20. Darkest

    Darkest Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,044
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    HD7950
    Even assuming the only way to take weed was to smoke it, nobody is forcing you to be around said smokers. Luckily for you, it's not the only way -- you can ingest it. I understand where you're coming from, but banning a plant because others find it offensive is outright ridiculous. That is the stance some in this thread are taking.

    I'm not a hardcore weed smoker, I've used it in the past and very rarely use it for recreational purposes. I've went years between touching the stuff. So I can hardly be classed with the biased smokers group. I believe in people having the right to choose as long as it isn't actively harming others, and as far as pot goes the issues surrounding it on a legal level are massively blown out of proportion.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017

Share This Page