DirectX11 & Mind Altering Substances

[Sourdeez]

It can be psychologically addictive but that is caused by the psychology of the individual not the inherent properties of the substance itself


Cocain would be a good example of a substance that because of its method of action and the properties of the substance itself. It tends to be very addictive psychologically and physiologically. Ive used it and I can attest, when your on it and at least shortly after ,you want more. Even if you find its effects to be kinda lame.

Its very unlikely that the marijuana movement will come out and say marijuana is addictive or a gateway drug because the substance itself is not physiologically addictive and is not a gateway drug because of inherent properties to the substance itself.

You may argue its used as a gateway drug but that's not the marijuana itself making people use it in such a way.

The truth is marijuana has a ton of medicinal value and while you can become psychologically addicted to it, it really is safer then other recreational and many medicinal substances. Some people with underlying mental illness(Like schizophrenia) should not smoke. Others with other mental illness find it helps them greatly with treating their illness.

Its also much safer to use physiologically than alcohol or other recreationally used substances today. If we want to talk about restriction. No sale to anyone under 18 in my opinion. No driving impaired. My state allows public intoxication so walking on the street stoned is fine.
Even if you smoke as much as you can(the equivalent of binge drinking) you will do much less harm to yourself than if you binge drank. Im not saying its a miracle substance. Its simple just not as harmful and has loads of medicinal value. Its just not as harmful as your making it out to being.


And as for the elderly. A lot of elderly are using medical marijuana as medicine. A lot know just how much safer and healthier it is for them to eat it or vape it.

 

[Chris_Crime]

Then expect to wait longer for legalization on a federal level.

 

[Sourdeez]

No Problem. I don't believe in compromising the truth.

Same goes in my politics and voting.

Im not saying its a miracle substance. Its simple just not as harmful and has loads of medicinal value.

 

[Chris_Crime]

Would you compromise your truths if it allowed the people who need its medicinal values to receive them sooner?

Or so long as you're getting high, it doesn't really matter? Which would be a fair answer in my eyes, because at least it's honest example of checks and balances -- i want to get high, damn the rest; i want to help the sick, i'll take on a larger role.
Slice it any way you want, in the end these will be your choices.

 

[Sourdeez]

I disagree.

We can acknowledge its medicinal value
and we can acknowledge its recreational value

All while keeping to the truth about the substance and in a regulated and taxed framework.


The truth is, it has so much medicinal value anyone who has common day to day ailments can get it medicinally(In states with MMJ programs). It really isn't that big of a step from giving it out recreation-ally. The only difference is some people go to jail and some don't. Does that mean we should stop all MMJ programs? No, we should acknowledge the truth. Marijuana is a relatively safe recreational substance, safer than alcohol.

Should we still give out DUIs to people driving stoned? Yes absolutely.
But the substance itself should be treated like alcohol at least. Currently Marijuana is schedule 1 in this country. Which means it has no medicinal value. Which is completely false. Meth is schedule 2. It is less illegal than marijuana and "has medicinal value"

There is absolutely no reason we cant accept the truths of the relative safety of this substance and give legal access to consenting adults.
(Other than prison/industrial/corporate interests) But those are just corporate thugs.



Dui and regulation are the "Compromises" id be willing to make in society. Im a libertarian, or minarchist, though so I believe people should be able to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people, but not everyone believes that's how society should be set up.

 

[intoTheRain]

well i think we're going in circles now, but i'll put in my last word.

im not anti gun, im not anti drug, im not anti butter, im not anti alcohol.. im not really anti anything..

but drugs, alcohol, guns, etc. are dangerous in the hands of the wrong people. period.

it doesn't matter how aware we make people about the dangers of drugs, and the benefits, and how to properly use them etc. thousands of people will still use them improperly and OD every year.

just as no matter how much gun safety is taught, how beneficial and helpful they may be in the right hands, they are still going to make their way into the wrong hands and more lives will be lost.

this is why drugs are illegal, and always should be. i'm still on the line about pot being legal or not because it would bring a lot of good, and lets face it it already basically is legal, anyone who wants to smoke it, smokes it, and can easily get their hands on it. why not let the government and the people benefit from it, and allow it to create jobs.. but i'm still not sure. either make it extremely illegal and hand out big jail terms for possession charges, or just make it legal.. feels pretty stupid and pointless when its just teetering in the middle like it is now.

we teach safe sex in all the schools, on TV, etc. but young kids that shouldnt be are pumpin out kids day in day out regardless. just proof humanity is not nearly responsible enough for things as potentially dangerous as drugs, and guns, etc. to be legal.

as for cigarettes theyre dangerous in anyones hands, as is fast food, but lets face it when there is enough money, it doesnt matter how dangerous something is, it will never be illegal. to me its a complete joke cigarettes are legal, but thats another topic.

 

[Sourdeez]

And those are perfectly legitimate thoughts and ways of thinking. Even if we disagree on some things.

:bigup:

 

[Chris_Crime]

I don't see legalization happening on the federal level, period. You're asking too much of the feds.

There needs to be an industry, not a city-by-city mom & pop franchise. One to tax, administer guidelines, and to find culpable when the time arises. Marijuana has none of this. Suing The Farmacy isn't the same as suing Philip Morris International. The marijuana market would be sued dry within 5-10 *months* without the help of some controlling conglomerate. How's the Famarcy gonna battle that onslaught of litigation? And since there's no governing agency in place, the feds will call the shots as they see fit.
Marijuana could probably team with Pfizer and release a pill, or team up with Big Tobacco, for release on a national level. If we're fine with state level control, then so be it, until the feds coming knocking that is. They're just waiting on Marijuana to become too big for state control, then they'll come knock it down, and Marijuana will have nothing to show for their work because they're not even focusing on larger industry right now. It's all a mad dash to get rich off of pot heads in the states where it's legal at the moment. That's the marijuana business model.

 

[Sightless]

link to this complete BS statistic?

and even if its true, why is cocaine the only drug that matters?

Not original source, but a source nonetheless: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2K8NSDUH/tabs/toc.htm

100,518,000 people over 12 have smoked marijuana.
1,411,000 people over 12 show abuse of cocaine, which in this number includes crack.

This is a little different because it's for US only, and includes crack under cocaine. In this report, the number is more like 1/70 people.

Right before I talked about that, I said that I know cocaine isn't the only harder drug. I was only using it as an example, because cocaine is a drug that many people point to as what marijuana leads to. I'm only trying to say that for this one drug, the effects have not been what I would call devastating on a large scale. You may disagree, but at least we'll disagree on something objective.

just as i said earlier, some people could eat a stick of butter for breakfast lunch and dinner and never suffer any side effects because heart disease or whatever simply isn't in their genetic code. does that mean you would tell someone eating a stick of butter 3 times a day isn't dangerous?

No, it means that we tell people that butter is fatty and generally not useful if eaten with nothing else, and that there are people who have managed to live off of it. We give them the facts, and we don't say that butter makes your heart explode, makes you more likely to have schizophrenia, makes you hate your children, kill your parents, or chew out animal fat from the source.

Maybe gateway is a bad term, but would you agree that marijuana's addictive?

Absolutely not. You might find it 'addictive' in the sense that you love getting blazed with friends and going "woah dude, I know, right?", but there is no indication of dependence of any cannabinoids in humans.

Then there are studies like this: http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article ... eid=571420

Marijuana only | marijuana & tobacco | non-users

In contrast to non-users, marijuana-only users are more likely to have a good relationship with friends, and to play sports.
In contrast to marijuana + tobacco smokers, they were less likely to use other illegal drugs, or to have been drunk.

This, and other research, suggests that people who smoke marijuana are actually better adjusted than either those who don't smoke, or those who smoke marijuana and tobacco. This is not to say that pot isn't as bad as something else and therefore it's okay -- it's to say that marijuana isn't as scary as people think it is, and also that it shouldn't be seen as a catalyst for drug abuse.

 

[intoTheRain]

edited: said i was done going in circles and i gotta stick to my word!

good discussion though!

 

[Chris_Crime]

I think this is great, because I'm for legalization but I'm a realist when it comes to making it happen. The activists remain motivated, and Sightless is a huge, huge pothead, who would've guessed? Yes, I'm judging. absolutely i am.

 

[intoTheRain]

and Sightless is a huge, huge pothead, who would've guessed?

i got the idea he was straight edge tbh.

 

[Chris_Crime]

He's a joker
He's a smoker
He's a midnight toker
He sure don't want to hurt no one

 

[Sightless]

:|

 

[Chris_Crime]

:?:

 

[Sightless]

:nono:

 

[UghRochester]

He's a joker
He's a smoker
He's a midnight toker
He sure don't want to hurt no one

You know, that's one song I couldn't stop liking. The slider is amazing during the song. If only thetank was here to agree with me.

 

[Chris_Crime]

:nono:

listen, mister, we don't want any trouble, okay?

 

[WickedLiquid]

Should I just say it? Or are we are still laughing in the shadows?

 

[UghRochester]

Should I just say it? Or are we are still laughing in the shadows?

Chris_Crime still thinks Sightless is a male?