Joint decision

[A51Watcher]

A persons side in any debate is not the relevant point.

The manner in which you conduct yourself IS.

Is THAT clear enough for ya?



See ya in 2 weeks.

[Pimander]

in response to rdunk's claim that marijuana actually causes cancer,

Smoke causes cancer.  Most smoke does.  Tobacco, barbecue and also cannabis.  It isn't the actual cannabis but smoke.

Taken orally, cannabis is not known to be carcinogenic.  However, if you smoke too much of it, in my experience you get very little done and eat too much.   The resulting gain in weight causes heart disease and an increased risk of stroke among other things.

Looks like a few days off and I missed some action again.  Will I lose the will to live if I read this entire thread?

[WarToad]

Looks like a few days off and I missed some action again.  Will I lose the will to live if I read this entire thread?

Don't bother, it's a rehash of decades old arguements and the human desire to disconnect from reality to a more enjoyable fleeting delusion of reality.

[robomont]

Diesel smoke kills more than any other kind but you will not hear that from the cancer screamers.

[Amaterasu]

I thought anyone not high already, would understand what the cancers relative to drugs are - it is all of the problems you want to drum up relative to the recreational drugs, for both users and non-users.

Like I said, I see problems, alright, all of which relate to prohibition.

"Gazillions" of robberies  of non-users (and users) occur each year, by people hooked on whatever, trying to find money for that next hit. That is a huge huge cancer!

Yeah, and it has to do with prohibition.  If drugs were readily available and not "controlled," they would be vastly cheaper, and few if any would need to rob Others for Their drugs.

Then after being hooked long enough on some of them, then it is off to the hospitals and psyco wards, with families trying to get help for their addict relatives. Actually, there are "industries" devoted to trying to help those who are unable to help themselves. Huge cancer!

I can hardly call this a "cancer."  For one, it affects maybe .05% of the population.  For another, it is NOT growing - not in terms of percentages.  And the "industries" are there because They see a profit.  Yes, profit motive IS a cancer.

Gang and mob related cancers!

Yeah.  100% prohibition linked.  One hundred percent!

Huge waste of law enforcement resources at every level, including incarceration - huge cancer.

Yeah.  100% prohibition linked.  One hundred percent!  If some drugs were not "illegal," there would be NO "law enforcement" involved, NO incarceration.

People killed and injured in accidents related to recreational drug use.

ROFL!  The People who are in accidents from drugs other than alcohol is about 1% of the accidents caused by drugs - alcohol is 99% of them.  I don't think THIS is a problem of any great proportion.

The extreme and unknowable wast of financial resources for just the use of drugs - huge cancer!

Um...  So buying alcohol is a waste?  Maybe.  But what is it to YOU what anOther spends Their money on?  There are LOTS of things People spend money on that *I* think are a "waste," but it's THEIR money and I therefore cannot judge.  Hardly a "cancer."  What harm?

And on and on ad infinitum! And whether anyone admits to it or not, drug use can be worse for a user than most any real cancer, because drugs deal directly with the brain!! And that is where it all starts, and in many cases that is where it ends, for the user

On and on?  So far You have brought up mostly "cancer" symptoms related to prohibition, or non-problems that are YOUR issue with wanting to control what Others do.  Purely value judgments.

As for affecting the brain...  In many cases the "drug" used is endogenous to the Human system (e.g., DMT) or We have specific receptors READY AND WAITING for input (e.g., cannabis).  And to eschew anything that affects the brain means to cease eating.

I saw first hand the law enforcement/drug user cancesr several years ago, while serving on a county grand jury for six months. Probably 75% of the "business" conducted by the grand jury was drug related.

Uh, yeah.  Because of prohibition.  What would You have been concerning Yourself with if drugs were NOT "illegal?"

So...  Can You come up with any problems that are not prohibition related or personal value judgments?

[Amaterasu]

... until people can become sufficiently educated to know drugs are not a good thing for the human body!

WHA?  That is why We have DMT in Our system...  That is why We have cannabinoid receptors all ready to go...

No, love.  Drugs can be good things.  Natural drugs.

Do You take any pharmaceuticals?  Now THERE's a batch of useless "drugs."

[Pimander]

Don't bother, it's a rehash of decades old arguements and the human desire to disconnect from reality to a more enjoyable fleeting delusion of reality.

OK, I'll give this thread a miss.  My original profession was pharmacologist and these threads drive me potty.  Excuse the pun. 

[WarToad]

OK, I'll give this thread a miss.  My original profession was pharmacologist and these threads drive me potty.  Excuse the pun. 

I'm a medical underwriter, so... yea.  /FistBump

[rdunk]

 

Just to correct obvious misunderstandings of what I have said in this:

I never said nor implied that "drugs cause cancer"! My use of the word "cancer" was symbolism to all of the associated problems of every kind that are prevalent with the use of recreational drugs. These problems are like "cancers" as there is no real known cure of the human element of these cancerous problems.

My main point to begin with was relative to Uruguay's intention to be "price competitive" with the drug cartels. That will not take out the drug cartels! To start to fix this problem, the cost for these "now legal" drugs must take drugs and the drug cartels completely out of the "black market".

Making all of these drugs "legal" is the only way to fix this thing. If some people want to destroy their lives with it fine, as long as there is no outward effect on the public. If there is, THEN incarcerate for the civil offense, not for the drugs. Blaming the drugs is like blaming the Guns. That is the way it is with alcohol today. If you get drunk and kill somebody, then there are laws that deal with such offenses.

Stupid is as stupid does. Whether it is alcohol, marijuana, or the hard stuff, controlled personal responsibility goes away with the addiction, as the addiction takes control. And it is in the human element areas wherein drug legalization will present the most difficult problems. In making drugs legal, addiction will be ugly, and must be firmly dealt with, for this paradigm change to be the success intended. Addiction results must be harshly dealt with, IMO. 

[deuem]

The word, recreational drug(s)  with an "S" on drug has been used here alot.

Where is the line in the sand if there is one. If one goes legal, will they all?  Should they be legal or held back?

Will cocane, smack or LSD be on the store shelf right next to the pot ? Like beer is to whisky.

[burntheships]

The word, recreational drug(s)  with an "S" on drug has been used here alot.

Where is the line in the sand if there is one. If one goes legal, will they all? 

Indeed.

I know that all natural
drugs have a purpose in life, I understand that
cannabis has good medicinal properties etc...
and that pharma is not the answer to everything,
personally I avoid all pharma drugs as much as possible....

However....one thought crosses my mind; folks who are too into
their "recreation" and cant be bothered to work to earn
a living, or even provide enough food for themselves....

Who is going to take care of them, who will pay?
Who is going to pay for their food, housing,
for that matter are we going to end up
paying for their "recreation" also?



I suppose as it already is, those who work. Yeah,
the "stupid" ones who are slaves to the system.



Those slaves who are working so hard they have
little time for recreation period let alone
time to "recreate" using "recreational drugs".

[Amaterasu]

Just to correct obvious misunderstandings of what I have said in this:

I never said nor implied that "drugs cause cancer"! My use of the word "cancer" was symbolism to all of the associated problems of every kind that are prevalent with the use of recreational drugs. These problems are like "cancers" as there is no real known cure of the human element of these cancerous problems.

I grasped that You were using it metaphorically...and surely one thing cancer does is grow out of control, so I thought maybe You believed in the idea that if it was not "illegal," soon EVERYONE would be choosing to alter perspective - growing like...cancer.  In fact, virtually everyOne who would use substances if they were "legal" is ALREADY using "illegally."

My main point to begin with was relative to Uruguay's intention to be "price competitive" with the drug cartels. That will not take out the drug cartels! To start to fix this problem, the cost for these "now legal" drugs must take drugs and the drug cartels completely out of the "black market".   

Making all of these drugs "legal" is the only way to fix this thing. If some people want to destroy their lives with it fine, as long as there is no outward effect on the public. If there is, THEN incarcerate for the civil offense, not for the drugs. Blaming the drugs is like blaming the Guns. That is the way it is with alcohol today. If you get drunk and kill somebody, then there are laws that deal with such offenses.

My point too.  [smile]  And I might add:  If some people want to explore Consciousness with it is fine, as long as there is no outward effect on the public.  Eh?

The exploration of Consciousness as: BAD, is a value judgment.  With very few exceptions, such explorations are not harmful to the explorer when the substance used is pure.  Adulteration is a prohibition problem.

Stupid is as stupid does. Whether it is alcohol, marijuana, or the hard stuff, controlled personal responsibility goes away with the addiction, as the addiction takes control.

Why is cannabis in this list?  There is no addiction - though some who have placed negative value judgment on exploring Consciousness would claim "psychological" addiction, the truth is that the stress being relieved with cannabis is usually still there when not using, so the desire to Self-treat remains.  REALLY poor analysis to call that "addiction."

And it is in the human element areas wherein drug legalization will present the most difficult problems. In making drugs legal, addiction will be ugly, and must be firmly dealt with, for this paradigm change to be the success intended. Addiction results must be harshly dealt with, IMO.

Let Me ask...  If One can get cheap, pure substances, where is the issue with "addiction?"  And why is it Our "responsibility" to "harshly deal" with ANYONE?

Just because YOU have placed a negative value judgment on exploring Consciousness (Where in that book of Yours does it say that such exploration is "BAD?") does not follow that there is any INHERENT issue.

I say We legalize, and offer help to Those who ASK for it.  With kindness, concern, love.  "Harshness" is best left for any devils to mete out.

[Amaterasu]

Indeed.

I know that all natural
drugs have a purpose in life, I understand that
cannabis has good medicinal properties etc...
and that pharma is not the answer to everything,
personally I avoid all pharma drugs as much as possible....

However....one thought crosses my mind; folks who are too into
their "recreation" and cant be bothered to work to earn
a living, or even provide enough food for themselves....

Who is going to take care of them, who will pay?
Who is going to pay for their food, housing,
for that matter are we going to end up
paying for their "recreation" also?



I suppose as it already is, those who work. Yeah,
the "stupid" ones who are slaves to the system.



Those slaves who are working so hard they have
little time for recreation period let alone
time to "recreate" using "recreational drugs".

Solution:  Get rid of the need for money.  Also, 99% of "potheads" work as lawyers, doctors, researchers, store managers, clerks, accountants, insurance salesPeople, foresters, politicians, barristas, day laborers, architects, physicists, movie producers, writers, actors, farmers, programmers, ad infinitum.  That is...  IF They can find a job in this economy.

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

OK, i'm not finished reading all the posts, but;

If I did not, then our impending, at least potential extinction as a species would not be upsetting me anywhere near as much as it does.  If you are trying to understand why I seem to be in such a bad mood all the time, then that is the answer; I am in a state of almost continual grief, and despair

Therin lies the answer to something that was bugging me.
Dispair often leads to anger, which i read in the last few posts.
Light up a 'spliff' & chill out, man

We are all in the same boat, if we're gonna die, then we will die.

Trying to inform 5 billion peeps of their impending doom is a BIG job, and  no one person, group, or nation is enough. All we can do is inform enough people to ensure some continuance of our species after the crash.

I am convinced that there are enough peeps around who know this. Everybody is making plans, some for themselves, and others for the whole world....

I agree with Zorgon, his posts were by far the most accurate IMO.

Let me tell you something, i live in the most densely poulated country on Earth, over 16 milion peeps stuffed into an area not much bigger than Yorkshire.
We have a lot of immigrants, & a lot of unemployed youth etc etc so yes we have problems.

We also have legalised soft drugs.
Because of this, the actual crime rate is quite low when looked at from the drug angle.
Most of the serious crimes here are due to hard drugs, maffia wars religious nutters fanatics etc..

{however that's about to change for the worse, they want to limit the sale of drugs to only Dutch citizens, if they do that all hell will break loose, it's all the immigrants & tourists that keep this (semi-legal) industry going without them, we wouldn't have a drugs industry at all, LOL}

Lately we have had the same kind of incidents the USA has had, like shootings in schools, peeps waving AK's in shopping malls etc.

None of these had anything to do with (soft) drugs, you will always get psycho's, drugs or not.

Drugs like Coke, Crack, Alcohol, Anabolic steroids etc are all known to turn normally placid peeps into agressive nutters, i've seen it, i've read up on it.

And i will close with the same thing i posted on ATS, when they tried to slam me for even talking about the subject;

"How are you going to solve this problem, if you cannot talk about it openly?"

Now, can we please get back to the essence of this thread & debate in a clear, civilised & logical manner because this is a big issue, and i like reading peeps opinions on it.
I don't like reading peoples opinions of each other

Can we get back on topic, and please read links etc they may be useful to your argument debate, and no more rattles being thrown out of prams.... :

On the Cancer issue, statisticaly, 1 in 5 of us will snuff it from the Big C whether we smoke or not, i lost freinds & relatives (as i'm sure you all have) and the never smoked, or drank, in a lot of cases.

High frequency radiation like cellphones, PC's, microwaves, sat-navs, you name it, HAVE been linked to cancer in about 60% of the cases, and chemicals in most of the others, stuff like Toluene & TFE..with a bit of leeway for the accuracy of those reports.

Your office is far more likely to kill you than the fag you smoke outside

[Fruitbat]

Cancer rate 1 in 5??

It was already 1 in 3 pre-fukushima...
Some say it's a fifty-fifty deal now.

And lets just consider cancer from fags for a second. Does anyone not think that the connection between cancer and fags would have been made in the early days of medicine, when they were doing all that anatomy work? It's bleeding OBVIOUS if someone dies of lung cancer, particularly if you disassemble the body and take a look, which they have been doing for centuries now.

Cancer from fags I am told is because tobacco has an affiliation for a radioactive element that was released during the early days of nuclear testing. Unfortunately I cannot remember the elements name... I have researched the issue a bit though by reading old medical texts on gutenburg, and it does appear that cancer was really rare pre-1945. Wonder what we did in '45...

FB.