"Potheads are losers - We're doing you a favor"
- Thread starter Dank
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
I almost did "PMS" on him when I saw the part where he said that civilians killing criminals in defense was a reason civilians should be disarmed.
RavenStarSinger
I can make you die laughing or just shoot you
Rogue . . .
Oh, I know this is a bit late, but that comment you made about extremists and looking it up in the dictionary made me laugh my ass off!
Where I DO agree that cooperation might get you into more trouble, FAILURE to cooperate can get your ass in jail just as fast. And on the point of using my knife . . . lemme just say this: me with a 3 1/2 pocket knife that is not intended for combat, versus two officers armed with Sig 9mm. The SigArms manufacturing and distributing facilites are located in Exeter, and part of their contract is that they supply the local law enforcement with armaments. . . GOOD armaments. I am all for putting my life on the line to defend freedom and civil liberties, but I am NOT going to do so futiley over something like this. If they were breaking into my home, or if they were using brutal force against a loved one, that's one thing, but I can live without my pocket knife. Besides, losing that knife gave me the impetus to buy a Ka-Bar Survival knife, not the Marine Fighting knife, but the double-edged stiletto kind. Illegal? Maybe. But since mine was taken illegally, then why should I obey any laws pertaining to knives. Obviously, the local popo does not either.
Oh, I know this is a bit late, but that comment you made about extremists and looking it up in the dictionary made me laugh my ass off!
Damn lots to reply to...
...but it seems Rogue got here before me
Nevertheless, as the flames were directed towards me, I will reply to them personally.
Why are you flaming in the first place? This is a debate, you don't need to insult someones "lack of experience" on the matter. And for that matter, I have been on a research assignment for 4+ months in school on "Police protection". By the end of the semester I was researching "Police Brutality". Go figure.
<i>yes.. they if they feel its neccesary to drive a tank thru a wall to capture somone, let them, as long as they have no final say in his conviction.</i>
Oh my god I hope you are joking. You will let these guys drive a goddamn tank through a wall? And I know good cops will have enough logic not to do this. Think about all the innocent people who are hurt while doing this. Lets see: extensive property damage, psychological damage (five year old kid sees his dad attacked by a damn tank and 10+ officers in full gear... and don't say that its "an example" for the kid, because he will either be terrified (at the police) or scared ****less by the whole event), and god knows what other kind of damage. Just tell me you aren't serious. Lets capture a prositute. I think I'll drive a tank through their brothel.
<i>thats horrible.. that means that civilians kill more people than cops, police usually manage to arrest people without bloodshed. This is another reason civilians dont need guns.</i>
No, you read the statistic wrong. Civilians kill more "crooks" than do cops. Bad sign or gross negligence on the part of the police? Sure an untrained civilian with some weak pistol he has (because of "gun control" laws), can't do more damage to crooks than a <b>trained</b> cop with a Sig (almost at minimum)? And a definite no to cops arresting people without bloodshed. You missed the part about 11% of their shootings directed towards innocent civilians. Whoops, bad shot. Compare this with the 2% annual rate for civilians. If any thing, this statistic proves that we would be better off if we armed only civilians and none of the cops (or all of them as civilians, than disbanded the police force). This is just theoretically speaking of course, but the statistic seems to prove it.
<i>no.. they really dont... all the time?? You obviously have never ever had any encounters with police officers... ive never had a bad experience with one, they did in fact search my neighbors house...and they presented a warrent, asked permission and searched. </i>
You obviously don't live in a ghetto district. And truthfully neither do I. It seems you have seen one isolated incident in which cops searched a neighbors home while asking permission. Or maybe you came upon one of the good cops. Or you are living in an extremely good rich neighborhood. I don't know exactly. But the point is these things happen to poorer, (and for the most part black) neighborhoods. Of course you won't see these things in the news, or coming from the mouth of the police. You are saying these things never happen. I'm saying they do, and quite frequently. Again, read the beginning post to this thread. And alot of other posts in it as well. Seems all of these are illegal searchings/possessions. And who are you going to complain to? The police? Your legal advisor?
<i>They use high tech gear to reduce the risk to them. And we DO go after the big guys, what are you talking about? Do you think we just go after small time crooks? You have no knowledge about this subject, Ramon "The Baron" Cantu was just captured last year, with an estimated estate of 67 million dollars (from cocaine). Do you honestly think that police officers just use these things for the **** of it? Listen.. they risk their lives daily, and you are probably the most ungreatful person ive ever met. You obviously dont know what police officers do every day, you name a few cases where they screw up, but almost all the time they are doing positive things and you overlook them. They DO fight cartels in the US, they fight militant groups, they fight gangs, they fight idiots with guns as well. "The police" protect us, if you are being attacked you call the police, and they show up, you resent them because you are afraid of them, and honestly you dont understand anything they do.</i>
You are right, they use high tech gear to reduce the risk to them. Not the civilians, certainly not. To protect themselves, which is their foremost objective.
What do you mean "we" go after the big guys? And for that matter, yes I do think that for the most part police go after small time crooks. And I have no idea what you mean by Ramon Cantu. I couldn't find it on any search engine. I need a url to guage this situation (which may or may not be an isolated occurence).
I'll just skip the flames. Fight militant groups? What? Like what? And for what reason? Were they asking for the unsuppression of their rights? And Rogue Leader put it right, they are a gang. An extremely well funded and large gang, but a gang nonetheless. They make the rules, and you obey them. Not out of respect, but out of fear (gun to the head, prison time etc.) And it takes police forever to respond. And no, I am not afraid of them. I am afraid at what they are becoming. The police are here to keep the peace. Not fight a goddamn war against the people. Which is precisely what they are doing most of the time. And I understand <b>very</b> much about what they do and how they do it. You can't just say I know nothing about them just because of my opinions on them. I know what I can see, and from the 4+ months of research I have done on them. I know plenty well what they do, and what they are capable of. We have one the most corrupted police force on the planet. And I resent them because alot of them are idiots. Not the overwhelming majority of them, like many point out, but too many of them. Wayyyyyy too many of them are idiots. It's like going into government office and finding that 1/5 of the politicans that are there are corrupt. Something is seriously wrong here, and a complete reorganization is the only solution. Not giving them more power.
<i>A lot of people are assholes, why are you labeling the police? Body armor.. yes.... why shouldnt they have body armor? They are being SHOT AT, and if you were being shot at you would wear it too. And no.. it doesnt prove anything, an isolated incident doesnt prove a thing.</i>
Because as a percentage based on population ratio, a larger percentage of cops are assholes than civilians
No, I wouldn't wear it because I am a civilian, and there is no legal way I could get it. And when a thousand isolated incidents come together, they become common. A regular occurence. This itself shows that something is wrong.
RavenStarSinger: It's alright, those guys were just idiots. Hehe, I can almost bet one of those guys wanted your pocket knife, and used the "law" to get what he wanted. A pocket knife is definitely not for self defense; just a utility thing, like a utility belt I don't know if a KaBar is illegal, but it shouldn't be. People collect all kinds of things, and although a KaBar is can be classified as a lethal weapon, so is a butcher knife.
DeadeyeDan: I agree wholeheartedly. I don't like it when people think they are all high and mighty, and think they are above the law. It's also annoying to see people fall like sheep for it, and give up their rights so incredibly easily. Sure, it doesn't seem to affect you much in the short term, but what about in the long run? Sounds like a cool district you live in. I have never lived in "terrible" areas of the United States, but just by reading the news, viewing statistics and getting knowledge straight from its source (interviewed police officers), I find it is enough. Not all cops are bad. But too many are. Simple as that. And they are overfunded. Your personal experience tells you that civilians can be (and usually are) just as responsible as cops with weapons. Statistics can only serve to back you up. I mean, 11% of civilians shot? That number is too damn high. With all their training, I expect no more than 1%. You don't see 11% civilian/friendly fire casualties in the military. Why? Because they are trained, and responsible, with their weapons. And a friendly fire/civilian casualty in the military is punished far more than a cop shooting some guy in the back by "accident".
...but it seems Rogue got here before me
Nevertheless, as the flames were directed towards me, I will reply to them personally.Why are you flaming in the first place? This is a debate, you don't need to insult someones "lack of experience" on the matter. And for that matter, I have been on a research assignment for 4+ months in school on "Police protection". By the end of the semester I was researching "Police Brutality". Go figure.
<i>yes.. they if they feel its neccesary to drive a tank thru a wall to capture somone, let them, as long as they have no final say in his conviction.</i>
Oh my god I hope you are joking. You will let these guys drive a goddamn tank through a wall? And I know good cops will have enough logic not to do this. Think about all the innocent people who are hurt while doing this. Lets see: extensive property damage, psychological damage (five year old kid sees his dad attacked by a damn tank and 10+ officers in full gear... and don't say that its "an example" for the kid, because he will either be terrified (at the police) or scared ****less by the whole event), and god knows what other kind of damage. Just tell me you aren't serious. Lets capture a prositute. I think I'll drive a tank through their brothel.
<i>thats horrible.. that means that civilians kill more people than cops, police usually manage to arrest people without bloodshed. This is another reason civilians dont need guns.</i>
No, you read the statistic wrong. Civilians kill more "crooks" than do cops. Bad sign or gross negligence on the part of the police? Sure an untrained civilian with some weak pistol he has (because of "gun control" laws), can't do more damage to crooks than a <b>trained</b> cop with a Sig (almost at minimum)? And a definite no to cops arresting people without bloodshed. You missed the part about 11% of their shootings directed towards innocent civilians. Whoops, bad shot. Compare this with the 2% annual rate for civilians. If any thing, this statistic proves that we would be better off if we armed only civilians and none of the cops (or all of them as civilians, than disbanded the police force). This is just theoretically speaking of course, but the statistic seems to prove it.
<i>no.. they really dont... all the time?? You obviously have never ever had any encounters with police officers... ive never had a bad experience with one, they did in fact search my neighbors house...and they presented a warrent, asked permission and searched. </i>
You obviously don't live in a ghetto district. And truthfully neither do I. It seems you have seen one isolated incident in which cops searched a neighbors home while asking permission. Or maybe you came upon one of the good cops. Or you are living in an extremely good rich neighborhood. I don't know exactly. But the point is these things happen to poorer, (and for the most part black) neighborhoods. Of course you won't see these things in the news, or coming from the mouth of the police. You are saying these things never happen. I'm saying they do, and quite frequently. Again, read the beginning post to this thread. And alot of other posts in it as well. Seems all of these are illegal searchings/possessions. And who are you going to complain to? The police? Your legal advisor?
<i>They use high tech gear to reduce the risk to them. And we DO go after the big guys, what are you talking about? Do you think we just go after small time crooks? You have no knowledge about this subject, Ramon "The Baron" Cantu was just captured last year, with an estimated estate of 67 million dollars (from cocaine). Do you honestly think that police officers just use these things for the **** of it? Listen.. they risk their lives daily, and you are probably the most ungreatful person ive ever met. You obviously dont know what police officers do every day, you name a few cases where they screw up, but almost all the time they are doing positive things and you overlook them. They DO fight cartels in the US, they fight militant groups, they fight gangs, they fight idiots with guns as well. "The police" protect us, if you are being attacked you call the police, and they show up, you resent them because you are afraid of them, and honestly you dont understand anything they do.</i>
You are right, they use high tech gear to reduce the risk to them. Not the civilians, certainly not. To protect themselves, which is their foremost objective.
What do you mean "we" go after the big guys? And for that matter, yes I do think that for the most part police go after small time crooks. And I have no idea what you mean by Ramon Cantu. I couldn't find it on any search engine. I need a url to guage this situation (which may or may not be an isolated occurence).
I'll just skip the flames. Fight militant groups? What? Like what? And for what reason? Were they asking for the unsuppression of their rights? And Rogue Leader put it right, they are a gang. An extremely well funded and large gang, but a gang nonetheless. They make the rules, and you obey them. Not out of respect, but out of fear (gun to the head, prison time etc.) And it takes police forever to respond. And no, I am not afraid of them. I am afraid at what they are becoming. The police are here to keep the peace. Not fight a goddamn war against the people. Which is precisely what they are doing most of the time. And I understand <b>very</b> much about what they do and how they do it. You can't just say I know nothing about them just because of my opinions on them. I know what I can see, and from the 4+ months of research I have done on them. I know plenty well what they do, and what they are capable of. We have one the most corrupted police force on the planet. And I resent them because alot of them are idiots. Not the overwhelming majority of them, like many point out, but too many of them. Wayyyyyy too many of them are idiots. It's like going into government office and finding that 1/5 of the politicans that are there are corrupt. Something is seriously wrong here, and a complete reorganization is the only solution. Not giving them more power.
<i>A lot of people are assholes, why are you labeling the police? Body armor.. yes.... why shouldnt they have body armor? They are being SHOT AT, and if you were being shot at you would wear it too. And no.. it doesnt prove anything, an isolated incident doesnt prove a thing.</i>
Because as a percentage based on population ratio, a larger percentage of cops are assholes than civilians
No, I wouldn't wear it because I am a civilian, and there is no legal way I could get it. And when a thousand isolated incidents come together, they become common. A regular occurence. This itself shows that something is wrong.
RavenStarSinger: It's alright, those guys were just idiots. Hehe, I can almost bet one of those guys wanted your pocket knife, and used the "law" to get what he wanted. A pocket knife is definitely not for self defense; just a utility thing, like a utility belt
I don't know if a KaBar is illegal, but it shouldn't be. People collect all kinds of things, and although a KaBar is can be classified as a lethal weapon, so is a butcher knife. DeadeyeDan: I agree wholeheartedly. I don't like it when people think they are all high and mighty, and think they are above the law. It's also annoying to see people fall like sheep for it, and give up their rights so incredibly easily. Sure, it doesn't seem to affect you much in the short term, but what about in the long run? Sounds like a cool district you live in. I have never lived in "terrible" areas of the United States, but just by reading the news, viewing statistics and getting knowledge straight from its source (interviewed police officers), I find it is enough. Not all cops are bad. But too many are. Simple as that. And they are overfunded. Your personal experience tells you that civilians can be (and usually are) just as responsible as cops with weapons. Statistics can only serve to back you up. I mean, 11% of civilians shot? That number is too damn high. With all their training, I expect no more than 1%. You don't see 11% civilian/friendly fire casualties in the military. Why? Because they are trained, and responsible, with their weapons. And a friendly fire/civilian casualty in the military is punished far more than a cop shooting some guy in the back by "accident".
its high time I speak through this.
regarding your post, dank. I have never smoked pot, nor do I have anything against it. I know that it is unhealthy. not as unhealthy a tobbaco, but still in the chart. the reason pot is illegal is because the government cannot make a profeit out of it. ciggaretes are more adictive than crack, yet they are legal due to the fact that tobacco money is one third of america's profeits. I do drink a bit of alcohol now and then, but nothing else. what those cops were doing to you was wrong.
blue
regarding your post, dank. I have never smoked pot, nor do I have anything against it. I know that it is unhealthy. not as unhealthy a tobbaco, but still in the chart. the reason pot is illegal is because the government cannot make a profeit out of it. ciggaretes are more adictive than crack, yet they are legal due to the fact that tobacco money is one third of america's profeits. I do drink a bit of alcohol now and then, but nothing else. what those cops were doing to you was wrong.
blue
Actually BlueSniper, a study that war completed recently that experimented with marijuana on monkeys found that the marijuana had absolute no unhealthy side affects. The smoke does not penetrate into the lungs as much as tobacco so it causes no damage and there is no alteration of the brain, as previously thought.
Rogue knows his stuff !
No evidence exists that anyone has ever died of a marijuana overdose. Tests performed on mice have shown that the ratio of cannabinoids (the chemicals in marijuana that make you stoned) necessary for overdose to the amount necessary for intoxication is 40,000:1. For comparison's sake, that ratio for alcohol is generally between 4:1 and 10:1. Alcohol overdoses kill about 5,000 yearly but marijuana overdoses kill no one as far as anyone can tell.
Marijuana is psychoactive because it stimulates certain brain receptors, but it does not produce toxins that kill them (like alcohol), and it does not wear them out as other drugs may. There is no evidence that marijuana use is a cause of brain damage. Studies by Dr. Robert Heath claimed the contrary in experiments on monkeys, but Heath's work has been sharply criticized by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences on three primary counts:
1. its insufficient sample size (only four monkeys),
2. its failure to control experimental bias, and
3. its misidentification of normal monkey brain structure as "damaged".
A far superior experiment by the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) involving 64 rhesus monkeys that were exposed to daily or weekly doses of marijuana smoke for a year found no evidence of structural or neurochemical changes in the brains of rhesus monkeys. Studies performed on actual human populations will confirm these results, even for chronic marijuana users (up to 18 joints per day) after many years of use. In fact, following the publication of two 1977 JAMA studies, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially announced its support for the decriminalization of marijuana.
Contrary to a 1987 television commercial sponsored by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA), marijuana does not "flatten" brain waves either. In the commercial, a normal human brain wave was compared to what was supposedly the (much flatter) brain wave of a 14-year-old high on marijuana. It was actually the brain wave of a coma patient. PDFA lied about the data, and had to pull the commercial off of the air when researchers complained to the television networks.
In reality, marijuana has the effect of slightly increasing alpha-wave activity. Alpha waves are generally associated with meditative and relaxed states which are, in turn, often associated with human creativity.
· Why don't you know any of this?
Because the tobacco industry is suppressing the information. Tobacco smoke is theorized to work as a kind of "magnet" for airborne radioactive particles such as radon, causing them to deposit in your lungs instead of on walls, rugs, or draperies. Tobacco, unlike marijuana, contains nicotine, which may harden arteries and cause many of the cases of heart disease associated with tobacco use. It also breaks down into cancer-promoting chemicals called N Nitrosamines when burned, and perhaps even when it is inside the body. THC is a bronchial dilator, which means it works like a cough drop by opening up your lungs and therefore aiding in the clearance of smoke and dirt. Nicotine has the exact opposite effect. Unlike the chemicals in marijuana, nicotine has a paralyzing effect on the tiny hairs along the body's air passages. These hairs normally work to keep foreign matter out of the lungs. This means that carcinogenic tar from cigarette smoke is relatively much harder to purge from your lungs than is that from marijuana. And finally, Marijuana users smoke significantly less than cigarette smokers do because of both marijuana's psychoactive properties (this is called "auto-titration") and nicotine's high potential for physical addiction. It is important to note that the NCTR study found no signs of lung cancer in its autopsied rhesus monkeys who had smoked marijuana for one year.
There are actually things that can be done to reduce and even entirely eliminate the bodily harm that may potentially result from smoking marijuana. This is possible because all of the principle psychoactive ingredients of marijuana (THC and the cannabinoids) are neither mutagenic (gene-mutating) nor carcinogenic (cancer-causing).
Legalizing marijuana would make (better) water bongs and marijuana foods, drinks, and pills both less expensive and more accessible. Smoking marijuana through a water-filled bong will cool the smoke and there is reason to believe that it will filter some of the carcinogens. Eating or drinking marijuana effectively eliminates all negative effects. In addition, it is conceivable that an aerosol contraption or vaporizer, commonly called a tilt pipe, could easily be constructed that would surpass joints in efficiency, match them in onset and control of effects, and yet would be effectively harmless to the body.
Marijuana use has not been found to act as a gateway drug to the use of harder drugs. Studies show that when the Dutch partially legalized marijuana in the 70's, heroin and cocaine use substantially declined, despite a slight increase in marijuana use. If the stepping stone theory were true, use should have gone up rather than down. In reality, it appears that marijuana use tends to substitute for the use of relatively more dangerous hard drugs like cocaine and heroin, rather than lead to their use. Thus, oftentimes strict marijuana laws themselves are the most significant factor involved in moving on to harder drugs like cocaine. Such is the case in Nevada and Arizona, the states toughest on marijuana use. A recent study by Columbia University's Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse attempts to show, like many past studies have, that marijuana users are more likely to use heroin or cocaine. But what the study actually does show is that a large number of heroin or cocaine users have used marijuana, not the reverse. What is not mentioned is that just as many or even more had probably also drank alcohol, smoked cigarettes, had sex, or eaten sandwiches prior to their hard drug use. In fact, a National High School survey tells us that in 1990, 40.7% of all high school students had tried marijuana or hashish at least once, whereas only 9.4% and 1.3% had ever used cocaine and heroin, respectively. Thus, at maximum, only 23% of marijuana users go on to use cocaine, and only 3% go on to use heroin. Thus, the stepping stone theory fails on even empirical grounds.
No evidence exists that anyone has ever died of a marijuana overdose. Tests performed on mice have shown that the ratio of cannabinoids (the chemicals in marijuana that make you stoned) necessary for overdose to the amount necessary for intoxication is 40,000:1. For comparison's sake, that ratio for alcohol is generally between 4:1 and 10:1. Alcohol overdoses kill about 5,000 yearly but marijuana overdoses kill no one as far as anyone can tell.
Marijuana is psychoactive because it stimulates certain brain receptors, but it does not produce toxins that kill them (like alcohol), and it does not wear them out as other drugs may. There is no evidence that marijuana use is a cause of brain damage. Studies by Dr. Robert Heath claimed the contrary in experiments on monkeys, but Heath's work has been sharply criticized by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences on three primary counts:
1. its insufficient sample size (only four monkeys),
2. its failure to control experimental bias, and
3. its misidentification of normal monkey brain structure as "damaged".
A far superior experiment by the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) involving 64 rhesus monkeys that were exposed to daily or weekly doses of marijuana smoke for a year found no evidence of structural or neurochemical changes in the brains of rhesus monkeys. Studies performed on actual human populations will confirm these results, even for chronic marijuana users (up to 18 joints per day) after many years of use. In fact, following the publication of two 1977 JAMA studies, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially announced its support for the decriminalization of marijuana.
Contrary to a 1987 television commercial sponsored by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA), marijuana does not "flatten" brain waves either. In the commercial, a normal human brain wave was compared to what was supposedly the (much flatter) brain wave of a 14-year-old high on marijuana. It was actually the brain wave of a coma patient. PDFA lied about the data, and had to pull the commercial off of the air when researchers complained to the television networks.
In reality, marijuana has the effect of slightly increasing alpha-wave activity. Alpha waves are generally associated with meditative and relaxed states which are, in turn, often associated with human creativity.
· Why don't you know any of this?
Because the tobacco industry is suppressing the information. Tobacco smoke is theorized to work as a kind of "magnet" for airborne radioactive particles such as radon, causing them to deposit in your lungs instead of on walls, rugs, or draperies. Tobacco, unlike marijuana, contains nicotine, which may harden arteries and cause many of the cases of heart disease associated with tobacco use. It also breaks down into cancer-promoting chemicals called N Nitrosamines when burned, and perhaps even when it is inside the body. THC is a bronchial dilator, which means it works like a cough drop by opening up your lungs and therefore aiding in the clearance of smoke and dirt. Nicotine has the exact opposite effect. Unlike the chemicals in marijuana, nicotine has a paralyzing effect on the tiny hairs along the body's air passages. These hairs normally work to keep foreign matter out of the lungs. This means that carcinogenic tar from cigarette smoke is relatively much harder to purge from your lungs than is that from marijuana. And finally, Marijuana users smoke significantly less than cigarette smokers do because of both marijuana's psychoactive properties (this is called "auto-titration") and nicotine's high potential for physical addiction. It is important to note that the NCTR study found no signs of lung cancer in its autopsied rhesus monkeys who had smoked marijuana for one year.
There are actually things that can be done to reduce and even entirely eliminate the bodily harm that may potentially result from smoking marijuana. This is possible because all of the principle psychoactive ingredients of marijuana (THC and the cannabinoids) are neither mutagenic (gene-mutating) nor carcinogenic (cancer-causing).
Legalizing marijuana would make (better) water bongs and marijuana foods, drinks, and pills both less expensive and more accessible. Smoking marijuana through a water-filled bong will cool the smoke and there is reason to believe that it will filter some of the carcinogens. Eating or drinking marijuana effectively eliminates all negative effects. In addition, it is conceivable that an aerosol contraption or vaporizer, commonly called a tilt pipe, could easily be constructed that would surpass joints in efficiency, match them in onset and control of effects, and yet would be effectively harmless to the body.
Marijuana use has not been found to act as a gateway drug to the use of harder drugs. Studies show that when the Dutch partially legalized marijuana in the 70's, heroin and cocaine use substantially declined, despite a slight increase in marijuana use. If the stepping stone theory were true, use should have gone up rather than down. In reality, it appears that marijuana use tends to substitute for the use of relatively more dangerous hard drugs like cocaine and heroin, rather than lead to their use. Thus, oftentimes strict marijuana laws themselves are the most significant factor involved in moving on to harder drugs like cocaine. Such is the case in Nevada and Arizona, the states toughest on marijuana use. A recent study by Columbia University's Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse attempts to show, like many past studies have, that marijuana users are more likely to use heroin or cocaine. But what the study actually does show is that a large number of heroin or cocaine users have used marijuana, not the reverse. What is not mentioned is that just as many or even more had probably also drank alcohol, smoked cigarettes, had sex, or eaten sandwiches prior to their hard drug use. In fact, a National High School survey tells us that in 1990, 40.7% of all high school students had tried marijuana or hashish at least once, whereas only 9.4% and 1.3% had ever used cocaine and heroin, respectively. Thus, at maximum, only 23% of marijuana users go on to use cocaine, and only 3% go on to use heroin. Thus, the stepping stone theory fails on even empirical grounds.
Damn Dank, you must study marijuana a lot
On another interesting note, alpha brain waves are also associated with psychic activity. Maybe marijuana is going to be the key to unlocking the full potential of our brains
On another interesting note, alpha brain waves are also associated with psychic activity. Maybe marijuana is going to be the key to unlocking the full potential of our brains
Yeah, I hope everyone takes the time to read what I wrote, it's not that long compared to some of the stuff you guys said.
Not only do I study it, but me and my family are living proof. My parents have smoked pot for 25+ years and they are not some half-minded idiots that sit around and eat junk food all day. Like myself they are vegans and very spirtitual.
Not only do I study it, but me and my family are living proof. My parents have smoked pot for 25+ years and they are not some half-minded idiots that sit around and eat junk food all day. Like myself they are vegans and very spirtitual.
Damned informative DankBudz
I now know more about marijuana than I knew before. Hehe. I have to say something funny that happened when I was a kid. We were visited in school by this D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) officer (police hehe), who wanted to inform us on the "terrors" of drugs. Almost all their information contradicted well thought out research. Here is an excerpt I somewhow continue to remember even now:
ME: Ma'am?
COP: Yes?
ME: What if you are in alot of pain, and you need drugs to relieve you?
COP: Than you have become a bad person. Drugs are all bad for you, and if you ever know anybody who uses it, turn them into the police almost as quickly as you can without telling them. They need help that you can't provide. And if you ever find yourself under the influence, turn yourself in. It is a waste of police resources to have to individually track you down.
OMG... I can hardly believe she said that. I'm just glad I have a brain of my own and didn't have to believe that crap. And these are what children are being taught nowadays. That you should turn in loved ones and friends for being in pain. I'm glad I don't go to public schools anymore. They are fascist.
I now know more about marijuana than I knew before. Hehe. I have to say something funny that happened when I was a kid. We were visited in school by this D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) officer (police hehe), who wanted to inform us on the "terrors" of drugs. Almost all their information contradicted well thought out research. Here is an excerpt I somewhow continue to remember even now:
ME: Ma'am?
COP: Yes?
ME: What if you are in alot of pain, and you need drugs to relieve you?
COP: Than you have become a bad person. Drugs are all bad for you, and if you ever know anybody who uses it, turn them into the police almost as quickly as you can without telling them. They need help that you can't provide. And if you ever find yourself under the influence, turn yourself in. It is a waste of police resources to have to individually track you down.
OMG... I can hardly believe she said that. I'm just glad I have a brain of my own and didn't have to believe that crap. And these are what children are being taught nowadays. That you should turn in loved ones and friends for being in pain. I'm glad I don't go to public schools anymore. They are fascist.
There is way to much to say on this topic about most of your "the police are bad....they beat black people and threaten our rights" nonesense. I thought about responding but NO MATTER what I say someone will bring up a stat or document that goes against what I say even if I have a stat too...... it is pointless because the fact of the matter is no matter how bad you want it pot is illegal and you will be arrested. Cops have guns to protect themselves and the public no matter how bad you want to blame the police for having a way of protecting themselves that you cant carry in your pocket.
on a side note and last time I respond in this thread
I dont think the police should do whatever it takes to capture a suspect....matter a fact in fresno we can not have a high speed chase unless it is a felony arrest (murder, bank robbery, etc)
on a side note and last time I respond in this thread
I dont think the police should do whatever it takes to capture a suspect....matter a fact in fresno we can not have a high speed chase unless it is a felony arrest (murder, bank robbery, etc)
i know im digging this up after a LONG time, but there was a link to it in one of danks posts and i wanted to give my opinion on it. i support the legalisation of marijuana BECAUSE it is a gateway drug. do people smoke some poit then think 'i know, ill do some harder drugs'? maybe they do, but do peopel smoke cigarettes or drink alchohol anmd then think ill do harder drugs? no. I think this is because by buying and smoking pot you have contacts in the drug black market. i dont really support the government using pot as a means to make money through taxes, but it doesnt just make people want something harder. from my experience peopel go for the harder drugs because they can, because when they buy from a dealer he says "hey, you want some E" and then "hey you want some coke". with alchohol and tobacco there is no problem, because your local shopkeeper does not offer you harder drugs. for some reason pot is a 'gateway' drug but alchohol and tobacco arent. because they are legal, by legalising it you remove the contacts needed to get harder drugs.
now i actually have views more radical than this, but i dont want to get into a big discussion about them, ill leave that to rogue. I just want to draw attention to a problem used by many anti legalistion organisations..
PS. its practically legal here now
now i actually have views more radical than this, but i dont want to get into a big discussion about them, ill leave that to rogue. I just want to draw attention to a problem used by many anti legalistion organisations..
PS. its practically legal here now
You must die!
Cops need guns to protect themselves FROM the public. If they weren't a threat, they wouldn't need them. Solution: Disband the police force.
It's been a VERY long time since I've head or a cop using his gun in self defence. The last 4 instances of police firearm use that I've heard of all involve innocent people being on the pointy end. Namely police using guns to disband riots and apprehend "dangerous" (read as: been sprayed with mace, in the fetal position) "criminals" (read as: stole a cookie because he hasn't eaten for a week)
Cops = Scum
hmmm, well I guess i might as well ressurect this topic as well.
Pot is not just a matter of a 2 hour long thing, its effects last a LOONG time but they wear out and lose ther "Ommmmph".
Sometimes for me a little high can last for 3 days (not a noticable one)
With that came the illusion of "smoking yourself retarded"
The more you use it, the longer it will last in the long run
If you smoke 2 bowls every day for 2 months, and stop, 4 or so weeks will have to go by before ALL of ANY effects wear off.
Hell, the more you smoke the more your pee will have that "strange odor".
And for all of you who dont want to try a wee tid bit of Weed, so what. Thats a bad thing AND a good thing, it just depends on the type of person you are. If you want to and a ready, go for it in a smart and respective way. If you never want to see the stuff, then never see the stuff.
Pot is not just a matter of a 2 hour long thing, its effects last a LOONG time but they wear out and lose ther "Ommmmph".
Sometimes for me a little high can last for 3 days (not a noticable one)
With that came the illusion of "smoking yourself retarded"
The more you use it, the longer it will last in the long run
If you smoke 2 bowls every day for 2 months, and stop, 4 or so weeks will have to go by before ALL of ANY effects wear off.
Hell, the more you smoke the more your pee will have that "strange odor".
And for all of you who dont want to try a wee tid bit of Weed, so what. Thats a bad thing AND a good thing, it just depends on the type of person you are. If you want to and a ready, go for it in a smart and respective way. If you never want to see the stuff, then never see the stuff.
Somone should show this thread to that Max Sterling a<b></b>sshole....
Yeah, all me and Balli do is flame people around here....
Yeah, all me and Balli do is flame people around here....