Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Snipers Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, voting in polls, and introducing yourself to our entire community. Registration is simple and fast!


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
002: Marijuana
Topic Started: Tue Dec 2, 2008 3:32 am (733 Views)
Stun
Level 10
Etra
Dec 3 2008, 12:30 AM
Druzil
Dec 2 2008, 11:06 PM
@Etra - I think his point is that marijuana would be a large competitor for the tobacco industry, which could be very true depending on who controls the drug. If pot was sold publicly I wouldn't doubt it if the large tobacco companies would buy out the industry and control it themselves, but what if the government decided to hold control over it? It could kill the tobacco industry. Weed is less dangerous than cigarettes and some could argue that being high is better than a nicotine rush.

With research of marijuana as inconclusive as it is, I kind of doubt that government would be willing to control the marijuana industry and take responsibility for any possible but currently unknown side effects.

I thought that the government couldn't illegalize things that had unknown effects? Isn't that the case with salvia?
Offline Profile
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
Etra
Dec 3 2008, 05:30 AM
Druzil
Dec 2 2008, 11:06 PM
@Etra - I think his point is that marijuana would be a large competitor for the tobacco industry, which could be very true depending on who controls the drug. If pot was sold publicly I wouldn't doubt it if the large tobacco companies would buy out the industry and control it themselves, but what if the government decided to hold control over it? It could kill the tobacco industry. Weed is less dangerous than cigarettes and some could argue that being high is better than a nicotine rush.

With research of marijuana as inconclusive as it is, I kind of doubt that government would be willing to control the marijuana industry and take responsibility for any possible but currently unknown side effects.

You may be right. It's possible that the cigarette companies themselves might attempt to control the growth and distribution of a commercialized marijuana. But it's true that the liquor and tobacco companies fund millions of dollars to anti-drug agencies. There's obviously something about the legalization of weed that threatens these companies, so it might not be as easy as we think to commercialize it, or else it probably would have been done already. I'll try and find a source to back up my claim.

But think about this. You say that the government wouldn't want to take responsiblity for something which is still not yet fully researched, but I don't think that's quite true. How long were cigarettes legal in this country before we really started discovering the gruesome side effects and consequences of smoking? How many prescription medicines are recalled after some poor sap dies of unknown complications resulting from the medicine because the drug wasn't tested properly? Alot of medication approved by the FDA, which is a goverment organization, are later recalled. There are lawsuits stemming from this very issue all the time. And marijuana has been around for a very long time. What really is left to research? Independant studies have shown over and over again that the danger of marijuana is quite low compared to some other legal drugs and pharmaceuticals. And weed wasn't even illegal until relatively recently. I'd bet it has something to do with the commercial potential of hemp threatening the established petroleum, cigarette, and even alchohol industries

And even in the case that marijuana is legalized, I highly doubt that it would be a government controlled industry. Very few products and services are solely distributed by the federal government, and these are usually products and services integral to the infrastructure of this country. Marijuana, as you stated, is a luxury. It's highly likely that such a luxury will be distributed by private companies. Especially one so profitable as marijuana.

I disagree with you on not being able to grow weed. You can brew beer and grow tobacco, so why not weed? And think about it. How long before the companies who privatize weed start adding more chemicals and additives to addict you? That doesn't mean everyone will start growing there own weed, though. I certainly won't be. Not everyone brews their own beer. It's much easier going to a bar and buying one that probably tastes better than the one you made yourself. It's all about practicality, and growing your own weed isn't really practical. The reason most people do it today is simply to sell it. And when marijuana is commercialized, why would people buy it from home growers when they can get it cheaper from a store? Other than for the novelty of it, of course.
Offline Profile
 
NighT
Member Avatar
Level 17
Druzil
Dec 2 2008, 11:06 PM
Reveal
Dec 2 2008, 06:49 PM
Druzil
Dec 2 2008, 01:26 PM
You're right, I've never done coke, but I understand how business works, and I've known people who have done it. They wouldn't lose more money than they gain, it's called an investment, one thing that's quite common amongst people who smoke weed is that they don't do it alone. Lace it with pot, sell it to X amount of kids, they become addicted, that = huge profit.

I don't think you understand the cocaine market my friend. If you have cocaine you sell cocaine as is because you can cut it with many different things. Cocaine sells for 60 to 100 a gram. Weed is 10-25 a gram. Those numbers vary depending on how good the pureness/bud is. It's not an investment, it's a stupid fucking move. Anybody who fucks with yak sticks to yak because cocaine= Big mother fucking money. Weed is pocket change. And if one uses their coke to lace another person's weed in hopes they will get more addicted than selling yak by itself it ignorant to the extreme. Snorting cocaine is much more addictive than smoking a turbo. I'm sorry but you have no idea how drug dealers work

You just contradicted yourself as well as proved my point. If you get a casual weed smoker addicted to cocaine that is more money in the dealers pocket, since you so eloquently put that cocaine is worth much more than weed. I NEVER said anything about snorting or smoking being more addicting, the fact of the matter is, if the person gets high from the cocaine laced in the pot and enjoy it, they're going to want to try it again, that's the main danger of marijuana, and if you don't think that's how a lot of people get addicted to other drugs you're naive. And I never said they only lace it with coke, they lace meth, crack, everything. Because the drug lords don't give a shit about anything but cutting a profit.


@Etra - I think his point is that marijuana would be a large competitor for the tobacco industry, which could be very true depending on who controls the drug. If pot was sold publicly I wouldn't doubt it if the large tobacco companies would buy out the industry and control it themselves, but what if the government decided to hold control over it? It could kill the tobacco industry. Weed is less dangerous than cigarettes and some could argue that being high is better than a nicotine rush.

Druzil, I have smoked laced weed and i knew it was laced after smoking it no i did not enjoy it i was scared because of how high i was from just one bong hoot a nd never once have i wanted to do cocaine.

P.s. I live in BC aswell
Offline Profile
 
Reveal
Level 11
Druzil
Dec 2 2008, 11:06 PM
Reveal
Dec 2 2008, 06:49 PM
Druzil
Dec 2 2008, 01:26 PM
You're right, I've never done coke, but I understand how business works, and I've known people who have done it. They wouldn't lose more money than they gain, it's called an investment, one thing that's quite common amongst people who smoke weed is that they don't do it alone. Lace it with pot, sell it to X amount of kids, they become addicted, that = huge profit.

I don't think you understand the cocaine market my friend. If you have cocaine you sell cocaine as is because you can cut it with many different things. Cocaine sells for 60 to 100 a gram. Weed is 10-25 a gram. Those numbers vary depending on how good the pureness/bud is. It's not an investment, it's a stupid fucking move. Anybody who fucks with yak sticks to yak because cocaine= Big mother fucking money. Weed is pocket change. And if one uses their coke to lace another person's weed in hopes they will get more addicted than selling yak by itself it ignorant to the extreme. Snorting cocaine is much more addictive than smoking a turbo. I'm sorry but you have no idea how drug dealers work

You just contradicted yourself as well as proved my point. If you get a casual weed smoker addicted to cocaine that is more money in the dealers pocket, since you so eloquently put that cocaine is worth much more than weed. I NEVER said anything about snorting or smoking being more addicting, the fact of the matter is, if the person gets high from the cocaine laced in the pot and enjoy it, they're going to want to try it again, that's the main danger of marijuana, and if you don't think that's how a lot of people get addicted to other drugs you're naive. And I never said they only lace it with coke, they lace meth, crack, everything. Because the drug lords don't give a shit about anything but cutting a profit.


@Etra - I think his point is that marijuana would be a large competitor for the tobacco industry, which could be very true depending on who controls the drug. If pot was sold publicly I wouldn't doubt it if the large tobacco companies would buy out the industry and control it themselves, but what if the government decided to hold control over it? It could kill the tobacco industry. Weed is less dangerous than cigarettes and some could argue that being high is better than a nicotine rush.

You don't get the same high off of smoking weed laced with cocaine versus doing cocaine by itself. Which is why cocaine by itself is much more profitable to the dealer. Turbo makes you have a speed balling effect but isn't addictive. Cocaine is HIGHLY addictive.

Basically what your saying is drug dealers will put anything in weed in hopes buyers will become more attracted to the laced weed. But that's not true at all. Drug dealers want to make a profit and that's all they care about. A drug dealer is not going to put heroin in weed and they aren't going to put cocaine either just because of how addictive they are by themselves. The don't need weed to interfere with their high because those hardcore drugs are more addictive by themselves rather than mixing the highs up with weed involved.


However, that does not mean they don't lace their weed. I'm saying they probably use something along the lines of bug killer or wet. And if the dealers did lace their weed with wet, I don't think the average pot smoker would go back just because of how fucked up you get off embalming fluid. Shit puts holes in your brain if you didn't know.

@Stun: Philadelphia
Offline Profile
 
Reveal
Level 11
Stun
Dec 3 2008, 01:35 AM
Etra
Dec 3 2008, 12:30 AM
Druzil
Dec 2 2008, 11:06 PM
@Etra - I think his point is that marijuana would be a large competitor for the tobacco industry, which could be very true depending on who controls the drug. If pot was sold publicly I wouldn't doubt it if the large tobacco companies would buy out the industry and control it themselves, but what if the government decided to hold control over it? It could kill the tobacco industry. Weed is less dangerous than cigarettes and some could argue that being high is better than a nicotine rush.

With research of marijuana as inconclusive as it is, I kind of doubt that government would be willing to control the marijuana industry and take responsibility for any possible but currently unknown side effects.

I thought that the government couldn't illegalize things that had unknown effects? Isn't that the case with salvia?

That only lasts for like 2 minutes and is pricey as hell. Just use that 40 bucks for half a gram of 70% pure yeyo.
Offline Profile
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
You guys are going really off topic now. Most of us aren't habitual drug users, so let's stick the issue at hand.

Having said that, it's obvious this discussion isn't going to be as vigorous as the last one, seeing as how the majority of us agree with each other on this particular issue. What happened to Xtreme or Dope playing the DA this round? I didn't pick a very contentious topic. I'll put more consideration into my next topic choice.



Offline Profile
 
Etra
Level 22
Stun
Dec 3 2008, 01:35 AM
I thought that the government couldn't illegalize things that had unknown effects? Isn't that the case with salvia?

Salvia doesn't really have "unknown effects." If you read the Wikipedia article on it, you can see that research into the short term and long term effects have been pretty thorough. There are good side effects and then there are bad side effects for salvia. It's legal, I think, because there are more beneficial ones. And the "harmful" ones are easy enough to look up so anyone that wants to use salvia can decide for themselves by weighing the pros and cons.

Tonic
Dec 3 2008, 01:46 AM
How long were cigarettes legal in this country before we really started discovering the gruesome side effects and consequences of smoking?

Tobacco was first introduced in Europe when Columbus brought some back with him after his discovery of North America. He discovered North America in 1492 so he brought tobacco back with him in the same year or in 1493. Prior to that, Native Americans had been using tobacco for who knows how long. So cigarettes were never made legal, tobacco was just something that was always used. A link between cigarettes and cancer was first suspected in the 1950s by the British (Source) and we began discovering the "gruesome side effects and consequences of smoking" in the 1950s (Source).

Tonic
Dec 3 2008, 01:46 AM
How many prescription medicines are recalled after some poor sap dies of unknown complications resulting from the medicine because the drug wasn't tested properly? Alot of medication approved by the FDA, which is a goverment organization, are later recalled. There are lawsuits stemming from this very issue all the time.

All prescription drugs are either adding new chemicals or increasing the amount of a chemical already present. The drug will probably do whatever it was created to but it should be pretty obvious that the altering of the human body's chemistry will have side effects. The problem is that it is impossible to find out exactly what those side effects are. Factor in things like a person's diet, health, genes, other drugs, and the environment, then consider that we don't even completely understand how the body works yet, and anyone that knows anything about independent and dependent variables and has a rudimentary understanding of biochemistry can tell you why it would be so difficult to test a drug "properly."

Tonic
Dec 3 2008, 01:46 AM
And marijuana has been around for a very long time. What really is left to research? Independant studies have shown over and over again that the danger of marijuana is quite low compared to some other legal drugs and pharmaceuticals.

Source?

Tonic
Dec 3 2008, 01:46 AM
And weed wasn't even illegal until relatively recently. I'd bet it has something to do with the commercial potential of hemp threatening the established petroleum, cigarette, and even alchohol industries

Hemp and marijuana are different plants. I don't see the connection between them.
Offline Profile
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
'Etra'
 
Tobacco was first introduced in Europe when Columbus brought some back with him after his discovery of North America. He discovered North America in 1492 so he brought tobacco back with him in the same year or in 1493. Prior to that, Native Americans had been using tobacco for who knows how long. So cigarettes were never made legal, tobacco was just something that was always used. A link between cigarettes and cancer was first suspected in the 1950s by the British (Source) and we began discovering the "gruesome side effects and consequences of smoking" in the 1950s (Source).


I would consider the 1950's relatively recently, given the fact that tobacco has been around for hundreds of years. And according to your source, cigarettes were first mass produced in the late 19th century, which still implies a large gap between the time they were first mass consumed and the time they began to link cigarettes directly to severe health issues.

'Etra'
 
All prescription drugs are either adding new chemicals or increasing the amount of a chemical already present. The drug will probably do whatever it was created to but it should be pretty obvious that the altering of the human body's chemistry will have side effects. The problem is that it is impossible to find out exactly what those side effects are. Factor in things like a person's diet, health, genes, other drugs, and the environment, then consider that we don't even completely understand how the body works yet, and anyone that knows anything about independent and dependent variables and has a rudimentary understanding of biochemistry can tell you why it would be so difficult to test a drug "properly."


I understand what you're saying, but doesn't this also apply to marijuana?

'Etra'
 
Source?


When smoked through a vaporizer, the health issues related to marijuana use are negligible. This is also the case whe marijuana is eaten. Since it's not smoked, all of the risks associated with smoking anything would be eliminated.

Source
Source

'Etra'
 
Hemp and marijuana are different plants. I don't see the connection between them.


The American government doesn't distinguish between the two, which is unfortunate. That's why they are both illegal, even though Hemp is obviously a valuable plant with numerous potential applications. Hemp and Marijuana are indeed connected, though, since they are both different variations of the same plant, Cannabis Sativa.
Offline Profile
 
Etra
Level 22
Tonic
Dec 3 2008, 04:54 PM
I would consider the 1950's relatively recently, given the fact that tobacco has been around for hundreds of years. And according to your source, cigarettes were first mass produced in the late 19th century, which still implies a large gap between the time they were first mass consumed and the time they began to link cigarettes directly to severe health issues.

My source also stated it takes 20-30 years for lung cancer to develop. And I don't think we had the technology to find a causal relation between cigarette smoking and cancer in the early 1900s.

Tonic
Dec 3 2008, 04:54 PM
I understand what you're saying, but doesn't this also apply to marijuana?

Which is why I said the government probably will not take control of the marijuana industry if marijuana is legalized.

Tonic
Dec 3 2008, 04:54 PM
When smoked through a vaporizer, the health issues related to marijuana use are negligible. This is also the case whe marijuana is eaten. Since it's not smoked, all of the risks associated with smoking anything would be eliminated.

Source
Source

The same can probably be said for vaporizing cigarettes.
Offline Profile
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
Well, even if it applies to cigarettes, that doesn't change the fact that some sort of marijuana should be legal if a drug like alcohol is.

Other than that, I don't think we disagree. :(
Offline Profile
 
Etra
Level 22
Tonic
Dec 3 2008, 05:20 PM
Well, even if it applies to cigarettes, that doesn't change the fact that some sort of marijuana should be legal if a drug like alcohol is.

Other than that, I don't think we disagree.  :(

When people compare marijuana and alcohol, they compare abused alcohol and moderately used marijuana. To be fair, either a comparison should be made between abused alcohol and abused marijuana or moderately used alcohol and moderately used marijuana. The former comparison would make it seem like alcohol should be made illegal and marijuana not legalized. The latter makes it seem like alcohol should remain legal and marijuana should be legalized.
Offline Profile
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
It's hard to compare the degree of intoxication from alcohol with the degree of intoxication of marijuana. I would say that someone who is moderately drunk poses more risk to himself and others than someone who is moderately high. Heavily drunk/high is no comparison.
Offline Profile
 
Stun
Level 10
I think we are all missing the biggest distinction from alcohol and marijuana.

You can die from alcohol if you drink too much(alcohol poisoning).

You can't die if you smoke too much.
Offline Profile
 
Etra
Level 22
Tonic
Dec 3 2008, 05:31 PM
It's hard to compare the degree of intoxication from alcohol with the degree of intoxication of marijuana. I would say that someone who is moderately drunk poses more risk to himself and others than someone who is moderately high. Heavily drunk/high is no comparison.

Er, by "moderately", I meant "in moderation". My mistake.

Stun
Dec 3 2008, 08:23 PM
I think we are all missing the biggest distinction from alcohol and marijuana.

You can die from alcohol if you drink too much(alcohol poisoning).

You can't die if you smoke too much.

Anything is dangerous if done "too much." You can die if you eat too much food, die if you drink too much water, die if you breathe too much air.
Offline Profile
 
Stun
Level 10
Etra
Dec 3 2008, 09:19 PM
Tonic
Dec 3 2008, 05:31 PM
It's hard to compare the degree of intoxication from alcohol with the degree of intoxication of marijuana. I would say that someone who is moderately drunk poses more risk to himself and others than someone who is moderately high. Heavily drunk/high is no comparison.

Er, by "moderately", I meant "in moderation". My mistake.

Stun
Dec 3 2008, 08:23 PM
I think we are all missing the biggest distinction from alcohol and marijuana.

You can die from alcohol if you drink too much(alcohol poisoning).

You can't die if you smoke too much.

Anything is dangerous if done "too much." You can die if you eat too much food, die if you drink too much water, die if you breathe too much air.

Indeed, but the numbers from people dying from alcohol are a lot more than the people that die from eating too much, drinking too much water, etc. (I don't have a source but that's pretty much common sense)

You can die from drinking too much alcohol in one night, that is proven, obviously.

You can NOT die from smoking too much weed in one night, no one ever has, no one ever will.

Both of these are common situations that people are pressured into. My point being that if you had to choose, weed is definitely the more safer of the two.
Offline Profile
 
Etra
Level 22
Stun
Dec 4 2008, 05:42 PM
Etra
Dec 3 2008, 09:19 PM
Er, by "moderately", I meant "in moderation". My mistake.

Anything is dangerous if done "too much." You can die if you eat too much food, die if you drink too much water, die if you breathe too much air.

Indeed, but the numbers from people dying from alcohol are a lot more than the people that die from eating too much, drinking too much water, etc. (I don't have a source but that's pretty much common sense)

You can die from drinking too much alcohol in one night, that is proven, obviously.

You can NOT die from smoking too much weed in one night, no one ever has, no one ever will.

Both of these are common situations that people are pressured into. My point being that if you had to choose, weed is definitely the more safer of the two.

http://www.acde.org/common/Marijana.htm
 
Effects of smoking are generally felt within a few minutes and peak in 10 to 30 minutes. They include dry mouth and throat, increased heart rate, impaired coordination and balance, delayed reaction time, and diminished short-term memory. Moderate doses tend to induce a sense of well-being and a dreamy state of relaxation that encourages fantasies, renders some users highly suggestible, and distorts perception (making it dangerous to operate machinery, drive a car or boat, or ride a bicycle). Stronger doses prompt more intense and often disturbing reactions including paranoia and hallucinations.

Yes, marijuana is still "safer" than alcohol in that marijuana is less likely to result in death than alcohol, but both are potentially lethal.
Offline Profile
 
LaRoCkO
Level 22
eLeveN
Dec 2 2008, 08:45 AM
Marijuana cures cancer. NUFF said. Marijuana also prevents strokes and heart attacks. If you smoke weed you usually get better at what it is you are doing while baked. smoking weed is not like taking drugs its a legit way to stay healthy fit and energized i highly suggest it.



WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET A BONG.

Correction, it does not cure cancer, but it does help patients relax, and put them in less stress and less pain...Also Marijuana is probably ten times safer than drinking...Why you say? Well i could smoke fuckin tons of weed...and drive..but if i drink a few drinks i can't drive at all...However the rest of the world thinks they can drive drunk...well thats wrong..Weed is safer...and it has nothing bad proven against it...? Legalize? Yes.
Offline Profile
 
Etra
Level 22
Topic will be closed on Monday.
Offline Profile
 
Dope
Member Avatar
Expert Colon Stomper
Stun
Dec 3 2008, 08:23 PM
I think we are all missing the biggest distinction from alcohol and marijuana.

You can die from alcohol if you drink too much(alcohol poisoning).

You can't die if you smoke too much.

You're obviously misinformed. In addition to inhaling 12 hazardous agents that are also found in cigarettes, you also inhale an additional 21 that are created by smoking marijuana....I Forgot about this topic, sorry I let all my fans down. I'll talk more about this later.

Quote:
 

Correction, it does not cure cancer, but it does help patients relax, and put them in less stress and less pain...Also Marijuana is probably ten times safer than drinking...Why you say? Well i could smoke fuckin tons of weed...and drive..but if i drink a few drinks i can't drive at all...However the rest of the world thinks they can drive drunk...well thats wrong..Weed is safer...and it has nothing bad proven against it...? Legalize? Yes.

Apparently you must be left in the dark. Cannibus fiber has been proven to cure breast cancer. Of course this study was relatively small and only done in the state of California. They are now confirming these results with a nation wide test and so far the results are looking positive.

Furthermore this goes to all of you...I wish people would look at marijuana for marijuana and stop comparing it to alcohol. It's not a valid argument. Tobacco is very dangerous, but people don't say if I can smoke tobacco why can't I do shrooms. It's not a valid argument.
Offline Profile
 
Aztec
Level 24
eLeveN
Dec 2 2008, 03:45 AM
Marijuana cures cancer. NUFF said. Marijuana also prevents strokes and heart attacks. If you smoke weed you usually get better at what it is you are doing while baked. smoking weed is not like taking drugs its a legit way to stay healthy fit and energized i highly suggest it.



WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET A BONG.

Weed doesn't cure anything. It just soothes the pain of going through chemotherapy. And it doesn't prevent strokes or heart attacks. Marijuana literally suffocates your cells death. It blocks nutrients and wastes from going in and out of the cell. That's why potheads generally have weaker immune systems. And also, it has more carcinogens than tobacco does.

However, I love smoking weed. I use it to relax because life can be very stressful. It keeps me from losing my temper. Whenever I feel I'm about to be pissed off, I go smoke a bowl or two and I'm chill. Also, I'm a pretty skinny guy, so I use it to gain and keep weight. Yay for munchies! lol.

And as for legal issues, it should be legalized. Salvia is legal and it gives a higher trip than weed, although it is much shorter. So why not legalize marijuana? From personal experience, everyone is nicer when they are high (from weed). We could all be much happier if it wasn't illegal! :)
Offline Profile
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Serious Discussions · Next Topic »
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2