Legalizing marijuana. I don't get it.

[iguana_tonante]

When I say "Why not?" isn't a good motivation, what I mean is that you shouldn't do something simply because its there to do. Your motivation for taking a deliberate action should be that the action will result in something beneficial.

I disagree. The only reason for not taking a deliberate action is that it will result to something harmful. Haven't you ever tried something just because you were curious?

You aren't really unfamiliar with how an analogy works, are you?

I'm simply curious at the specific analogy chosen. Why would someone chose an analogy that results in severe injury or death to use when talking about smoking pot? Especially when the person is pro legalization of pot.

Uh, because I wanted to show there are things you shouldn't do for good reasons, and smocking pot is not one of them. I'm not sure what your game is, frankly.

 

[Aldo]

Let's take drinking for example. It typically take quite a few drinks to get a normal adult inebriated (non-functional). Why many joints does it take to get a person high? Does it also depend on age, weight and tolerance?

A few people have already answered how long it takes a person to get high, so I'll ignore that one. What I do want to focus on though is how long you're inebriated after you get high versus alchohol.

When someone drinks enough to get drunk, that lasts them usually the whole day until they go to sleep and are able to sleep it on.

With weed, someone can get high on a few hits and that high (depending on the person) can actually go away after at most an hour. I know for me unless I really overdo it I can usually smoke at a friends house, and after about an hour or so I'm clear headed enough where I'm able to drive home, heck I could even go to work if I wanted to, but being the responsible person I am, I would never smoke pot before going to work.

 

[infinix]

You aren't really unfamiliar with how an analogy works, are you?

I'm simply curious at the specific analogy chosen. Why would someone chose an analogy that results in severe injury or death to use when talking about smoking pot? Especially when the person is pro legalization of pot.

You're really proving his point there, you know.

An analogy is used to compare similar characteristics of two things. I don't see any similarities between smoking pot and jumping out of a building. I would have used plastic surgery or hair implants as an analogy to smoking pot instead.

Uh, because I wanted to show there are things you shouldn't do for good reasons, and smocking pot is not one of them. I'm not sure what your game is, frankly.

I see what you mean. You were focusing on proving "Why Not" is the only question to ask when deciding to do something. Since the answer to "why not smoke pot" is basically null, you take that as a reason to smoke pot.

I prefer to ask both "why" and "why not" to produce the pro's and con's of an action. Let's take jumping out of a building for instance. There are times when the answers to "why" out-weight the answers to "why not."

If the building is on fire and I am on the second floor with no other means of escape, then there are definitely more compelling reasons for why I should jump out of the building compared to why I should not jump out of the building.

 

[infinix]

When someone drinks enough to get drunk, that lasts them usually the whole day until they go to sleep and are able to sleep it on.

With weed, someone can get high on a few hits and that high (depending on the person) can actually go away after at most an hour. I know for me unless I really overdo it I can usually smoke at a friends house, and after about an hour or so I'm clear headed enough where I'm able to drive home, heck I could even go to work if I wanted to, but being the responsible person I am, I would never smoke pot before going to work.

From my personal experience, I recall it was quite a while before the effects wore off. The only thing I distinctively remembered was that I had to keep reminding myself to breath because for whatever reason, I believed that my respiration was going to stop otherwise. The sensation lasted through the night.

Perhaps I smoked some strong stuff that's not meant for a first time user.

 

[Pingfah]

I'm simply curious at the specific analogy chosen. Why would someone chose an analogy that results in severe injury or death to use when talking about smoking pot? Especially when the person is pro legalization of pot.

You're really proving his point there, you know.

An analogy is used to compare similar characteristics of two things. I don't see any similarities between smoking pot and jumping out of a building. I would have used plastic surgery or hair implants as an analogy to smoking pot instead.

I'm going to assume you are having a joke, because if you aren't there's almost certainly no point trying to explain it to you.

 

[Aldo]

When someone drinks enough to get drunk, that lasts them usually the whole day until they go to sleep and are able to sleep it on.

With weed, someone can get high on a few hits and that high (depending on the person) can actually go away after at most an hour. I know for me unless I really overdo it I can usually smoke at a friends house, and after about an hour or so I'm clear headed enough where I'm able to drive home, heck I could even go to work if I wanted to, but being the responsible person I am, I would never smoke pot before going to work.

From my personal experience, I recall it was quite a while before the effects wore off. The only thing I distinctively remembered was that I had to keep reminding myself to breath because for whatever reason, I believed that my respiration was going to stop otherwise. The sensation lasted through the night.

Perhaps I smoked some strong stuff that's not meant for a first time user.

Based on the limited information you have given me, it was most likely the fact that you were a first time user. Some first timers will get high, and some won't. You apparently did.

It all depends on the person smoking. Like you said, you were high for hours, whereas the effects will wear off (or at least become real mild) for me after an hour or two...that's if I even smoke enough to get high for an hour or two. A few hits for me and I'll be back to normal after about a good 30 minutes.

Now on the other hand, if the pot is baked into say a brownie or cookie, that's a whole other story for me

 

[Sector 7]

Re: Legalizing marijuana. I don't get it.

I don't get it either. The potheads will argue about conspiracies and the benefits of hemp all day long, but what they really want is to smoke it. It is called hypocrisy. I never see any of them purchasing or making hemp clothing... or any of the other so-called beneficial uses of marijuana. However, they will TALK us to death for hours on end, then go smoke a joint, blunt, fattie or whatever the 'cool' term is today.

One of my half-brothers was certified genius, but he blew it all for pot, including a Senatorial appointment to West Point, football scholarships, a good job (even after blowing the other opportunities). He will still rail and rant about government and corporate conspiracies, then go smoke his pot. If all that energy was put to good use, he could have contributed so much to the world.

 

[Aldo]

Re: Legalizing marijuana. I don't get it.

I don't get it either. The potheads will argue about conspiracies and the benefits of hemp all day long, but what they really want is to smoke it. It is called hypocrisy. I never see any of them purchasing or making hemp clothing... or any of the other so-called beneficial uses of marijuana. However, they will TALK us to death for hours on end, then go smoke a joint, blunt, fattie or whatever the 'cool' term is today.

One of my half-brothers was certified genius, but he blew it all for pot, including a Senatorial appointment to West Point, football scholarships, a good job (even after blowing the other opportunities). He will still rail and rant about government and corporate conspiracies, then go smoke his pot. If all that energy was put to good use, he could have contributed so much to the world.

And once again someone is generalization the whole stoner community just because one person misused it.

 

[SG-17]

When someone drinks enough to get drunk, that lasts them usually the whole day until they go to sleep and are able to sleep it on.

With weed, someone can get high on a few hits and that high (depending on the person) can actually go away after at most an hour. I know for me unless I really overdo it I can usually smoke at a friends house, and after about an hour or so I'm clear headed enough where I'm able to drive home, heck I could even go to work if I wanted to, but being the responsible person I am, I would never smoke pot before going to work.

From my personal experience, I recall it was quite a while before the effects wore off. The only thing I distinctively remembered was that I had to keep reminding myself to breath because for whatever reason, I believed that my respiration was going to stop otherwise. The sensation lasted through the night.

Perhaps I smoked some strong stuff that's not meant for a first time user.

The first time experience can vary much. When I first did it my friend (who grows his own stuff, I'd never smoke anything bought from the street for fear of lacing) told me his plants are pretty strong for a first timer and I was still feeling the effects well into the day (well to be fair we only started to use it around 1 am). However the "giddiness" wore off after about 2 hours and I was competent enough to drive home.

 

[Pingfah]

I fins it amusing that some of the most chaotic and disordered attempts at reasoning in this thread are coming from people proudly declaring themselves pot free

 

[Trekker4747]

Based on all of my experience with a co-worker all alcohol drinkers are men who drink themselves stupid every night, become raging assholes, and then drive home, end-up wrecking their car into a tree while shattering their arm, they do this even though previous incidents have shown they're not good drivers when drunk and that the police don't take kindly to it.

 

[Davros]

I have tried pot before, but I wasn't overly impressed with its effects on me. So I don't really get why there is such a fervor to legalize it.

I raise this question because I've noticed several folks in here who are usually pretty vocal on this issue. Could you guys enlighten me on this issue?

I would think the argument of changing billions of dollars in spending on a failed program into billions of dollars of tax revenue would be enough.

Is it more for personal pleasure or is it more for the "hemp is a superior material for clothing and paper"?

Why not both?
Food
Fuel
Fiber
and Fun

 

[iguana_tonante]

I fins it amusing that some of the most chaotic and disordered attempts at reasoning in this thread are coming from people proudly declaring themselves pot free

The power of self-righteousness, I guess.

One of my half-brothers was certified genius, but he blew it all for pot, including a Senatorial appointment to West Point, football scholarships, a good job (even after blowing the other opportunities). He will still rail and rant about government and corporate conspiracies, then go smoke his pot. If all that energy was put to good use, he could have contributed so much to the world.

Blame it on pot... or your brother being a lazy dick. He's not a loser because he smokes pot. He smokes pot because he's a loser. Big difference.

 

[KJbushway]

I fins it amusing that some of the most chaotic and disordered attempts at reasoning in this thread are coming from people proudly declaring themselves pot free

The power of self-righteousness, I guess.

One of my half-brothers was certified genius, but he blew it all for pot, including a Senatorial appointment to West Point, football scholarships, a good job (even after blowing the other opportunities). He will still rail and rant about government and corporate conspiracies, then go smoke his pot. If all that energy was put to good use, he could have contributed so much to the world.

Blame it on pot... or your brother being a lazy dick. He's not a loser because he smokes pot. He smokes pot because he's a loser. Big difference.

I agree with the part that its your brothers fault, not a natural plant. I wouldn't use that langauge exactly though.
Pot is a natural plant(un-like any drug out there) and only has a 9% addiction rate compared to the other drugs and drinking. It relaxes the mind and produces the happy chemicals in the brain. Its the most harmless drug out there with more benefits than harms. If you look at most of the past surgeon generals, they have said beside the smoke itself(which can be taken away if smoked through a humidifier), the worst thing is you'll eat more.

With only a 9% addicition rate, its the individual which determines how it affects he or she. Plenty of Genuises have been pot smokers and have had successful life and can still carry on an intelligent conversation even when high. I can list examples if you wish.
So why is there a movement to legalize it
dollars
Least-harmful recreational thing out there
Could put many Americans to work and start many new buisnesses
It would lower the crime rate by taking away the power from meixan drug lords(which wouldn't be the case if you legalized all the Harmful things out there) becuase a person can just simply plant and grow.

Its the individual. Not the plant. And as an individual I plan to never try it.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I agree with the part that its your brothers fault, not a natural plant. I wouldn't use that language exactly though.

I wouldn't use that language in most circumstances, too. But as people might have noticed, self-righteousness makes me more abrasive than usual.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Uh, because I wanted to show there are things you shouldn't do for good reasons, and smocking pot is not one of them. I'm not sure what your game is, frankly.

I see what you mean. You were focusing on proving "Why Not" is the only question to ask when deciding to do something. Since the answer to "why not smoke pot" is basically null, you take that as a reason to smoke pot.

I prefer to ask both "why" and "why not" to produce the pro's and con's of an action. Let's take jumping out of a building for instance. There are times when the answers to "why" out-weight the answers to "why not."

OK, the why:

Someone gets medical benefits from it.
Someone gets recreational benefits from it.
It can help stimulate the economy.

The why not:

No compelling reason.

Would it be fair to say the Whys outweigh the why nots?

BTW, I really do think people who argue for legalization do themselves a disservice when they try to make it a massive conspiracy of monied interests in favor of keeping it illegal. I'd argue it's just inertia. People generally don't change the law unless they feel motivated to do so. Most people accept marijuana use as something OK in certain circles, but also accept it being illegal when enforced against certain circles. Since they really only care strongly about getting out and voting when they're middle aged and don't smoke anymore, they have no interest in changing the law. It's a sad fact, but I think that's the simplest explanation.

 

[infinix]

I agree with the part that its your brothers fault, not a natural plant. I wouldn't use that language exactly though.

I wouldn't use that language in most circumstances, too. But as people might have noticed, self-righteousness makes me more abrasive than usual.

So.. um.. Self-Righteousness begets Self-Righteousness?

BTW, I really do think people who argue for legalization do themselves a disservice when they try to make it a massive conspiracy of monied interests in favor of keeping it illegal. I'd argue it's just inertia. People generally don't change the law unless they feel motivated to do so. Most people accept marijuana use as something OK in certain circles, but also accept it being illegal when enforced against certain circles. Since they really only care strongly about getting out and voting when they're middle aged and don't smoke anymore, they have no interest in changing the law. It's a sad fact, but I think that's the simplest explanation.

What if pot made you more apathetic to what's going on around you? I can say that the few times I was high, I really didn't care much about what was going on around me.

Perhaps the effects of pot is cumulative so if you had smoked enough pot, you became generally apathetic. So those people who should really get out to vote for legalization of pot is too apathetic to do so.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Well, there is the argument that stoners are too stoned to vote, but I don't believe that either. There are plenty of moments where they are not high and could go do something. I think those that choose not to act fall into one of two groups:

Either they are disillusioned and don't think the laws will change, which, they might be right (most non-smokers aren't particularly motivated to change the laws either and, when all age groups are considered, I don't think stoners make up a majority) or they are indifferent. For most people, legal status of marijuana is a roadblock, not a barrier. They can go about their lives smoking all they want and the fact that they are breaking the law is only a minor barrier. For them, changing the status to legal is not worth their time or effort.

 

[Trekker4747]

Perhaps the effects of pot is cumulative so if you had smoked enough pot, you became generally apathetic. So those people who should really get out to vote for legalization of pot is too apathetic to do so.

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to see your data, where is your study being done? Is there opportunity for me to latch on and conduct my own spin-off study on the speculative cumulative affects of cannabis use?

 

[infinix]

Perhaps the effects of pot is cumulative so if you had smoked enough pot, you became generally apathetic. So those people who should really get out to vote for legalization of pot is too apathetic to do so.

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to see your data, where is your study being done? Is there opportunity for me to latch on and conduct my own spin-off study on the speculative cumulative affects of cannabis use?

Good idea. I shall draft and submit a funding request to my university for a cross-discipline (biology, psychology, and sociology) experiment designed to study the effects of extended exposure to the gaseous by-product of the combustion of the naturally occurring plant life designated Cannabis sativa.

I will seek volunteer participants for this experiment when the funding has been approved. There will be no monetary reward, but we will have enough cookies and milk and White Castle burgers for everyone.

Oh, and the following movies will be played non-stop during the experiment.

"How High"
"Harold and Kumar"
"Half Baked"
"Dude Where's My Car"
"Dazed and Confused"