Do I have the right...

Pages: 1234
Has anyone been following breaking bad OMG!! some good series's actually coming out of america again (the last good one was BSG)

Why do you guys think crystal meth isnt huge in the UK like it has been in the US? I know it exists just that no one really wants it or sells it.

There are better things than drugs anyway, we all do something constructive and have found something we like, we are a lot less likely to waste our time getting smashed...regularly anyway.
Zereo wrote:
you have to go to sometimes shady characters

Well, as a rule I would never buy anything other than weed from someone I didn't know, and weed dealers usually aren't exactly "shady".

Once you start smoking it regularly you start making other friends that do it

Not really, most people are introduced to it by friends who already smoke who were introduced by other friends and so on. Obviously at some point there has to be a person that decided to start by themselves and introduced their friends to it, but that's not how most people start. Once you start, you don't magically gain more friends who do it.

So yes smoking the weed itself does not make you try other drugs, but if you look at the whole picture it can be proven (IE the numerous studies I have posted previously) that there is a higher chance that you will try hard drugs if you smoke weed.

So, you're choosing to just ignore the one I mentioned? Some studies have found a correlation and some haven't. There isn't a scientific consensus over it. Although I don't know if more studies have found in favour than have found otherwise.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Well, as a rule I would never buy anything other than weed from someone I didn't know, and weed dealers usually aren't exactly "shady".


That is true some are nice people some are shady all depends on the person I guess and the crowd. I live in Minnesota and if I went to the down town Twin Cities and walked the streets I could find many shady weed dealers that just offer you to buy weed on the streets.

Not really, most people are introduced to it by friends who already smoke who were introduced by other friends and so on. Obviously at some point there has to be a person that decided to start by themselves and introduced their friends to it, but that's not how most people start. Once you start, you don't magically gain more friends who do it.


Again that is true to a point. But from my experience and it could be different for everyone, is that you tend to gravitate towards people that do the same activities as you do, or are interested in the same thing as you. So I don't see why smoking weed would be any different. When you get high most people find it a lot more enjoyable with other people that are high. This is not the case for everyone though.

So, you're choosing to just ignore the one I mentioned? Some studies have found a correlation and some haven't. There isn't a scientific consensus over it. Although I don't know if more studies have found in favour than have found otherwise.


Sorry no I wasn't trying to ignore the study you mention. And its true that there isn't a scientific consensus over it. But I was just trying to debate my side and the way I see it. It is a pretty big issue and there will be obvious bias in certain studies depending on who conducts them, and by the subjects (Drugs users are not usually in favor of anything that goes against drugs) so I believe it would be extremely hard to find a definitive answer on the subject just because of all the variables that come in to play.
Zereo wrote:
Since you already broke the law to try weed and you experienced the kind of high weed can give you there is a higher chance you would be willing to try a different drug for a number of reason (Peer pressure, you want to experience a different high, it is just available to you, ect). So yes smoking the weed itself does not make you try other drugs, but if you look at the whole picture it can be proven (IE the numerous studies I have posted previously) that there is a higher chance that you will try hard drugs if you smoke weed.


You know... if you substitute "weed" with "alcohol", you'd see how absurd this standpoint is. The high from weed is not significantly stronger than the high from alcohol.... but it is a lot less dangerous (weed doesn't impair your motor skills or judgement as much, and it generally does not make people violent like alcohol can).

Your standpoint hinges on the fact that weed is [mostly] illegal, while alcohol is [mostly] legal. If you remove that part from the equation, this becomes fruitless.

If we legallize it, sell it, regulate it, and tax it like we do with alcohol or tobacco, this becomes a non-issue very quickly. Practically overnight.

That is true, but the only way to totally remove the "drug scene" would be to have it legal for everyone even minors. Because if it is not legal for the minors they still have to break the law to smoke it and obtain it (Even though it would be a bit easier).


That is simply not true. It is not difficult for minor to obtain alcohol or tobacco (and they do) without going through the "drug scene". If pot is sold the same way, it wouldn't be any different.

I live in Minnesota and if I went to the down town Twin Cities and walked the streets I could find many shady weed dealers that just offer you to buy weed on the streets.


You might be confusing "weed dealers" with "drug dealers". Drug dealers are shady. Weed dealers can be, but generally are more laid back. I know several weed dealers around me, all of which I would trust enough to leave a stack of cash unattended on my table, knowing they wouldn't take it.

Plus, it also sounds like you might live in Meth country, which is giving you an overly harsh view of marijuana. Meth is extremely messed up and it makes people turn into complete assholes and pieces of human trash. So any dealer that deals in both meth and weed is going to be a complete scumbag.

But that's a problem with meth... not with weed.


Also... as was mentioned... you generally wouldn't buy weed from some random dealer off the streets. You buy it from someone you know. Or if you don't know anyone that sells, you ask your friends where they buy it from and meet the dealer first hand... and given that something like 80% of the US population smokes weed (pulling that number out of my ass, but I'd wager it's pretty close to that), I'm sure you have at least 1 friend that smokes.





Also... just fyi: I don't smoke. But just about everyone I know does, and I don't see anything wrong with it. I just choose not to because I don't see much appeal to it nor am I willing to spend my money on it.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
I have nothing against weed smokers or smoking weed in general, in fact I am in favor of legalizing it. My argument was not about not legalizing weed it was about keeping it out of underage hands and about how weed can have a gateway effect. I think me arguing that there can be shown to be a link between weed and hard drugs made people think I hate weed which I don't I smoked it for 2 years (stopped because it gave me really bad anxiety) and didn't find anything wrong with it.

You know... if you substitute "weed" with "alcohol", you'd see how absurd this standpoint is. The high from weed is not significantly stronger than the high from alcohol.... but it is a lot less dangerous (weed doesn't impair your motor skills or judgement as much, and it generally does not make people violent like alcohol can).


I agree that weed is a lot less harmful then alcohol I never said I thought it wasn't.

That is simply not true. It is not difficult for minor to obtain alcohol or tobacco (and they do) without going through the "drug scene". If pot is sold the same way, it wouldn't be any different.


Well I don't agree with this but everyone has different opinions. Generally someone that buys alcohol for minors doesn't much care about the law or about kids getting high (I'm not talking about kids that are like 20 years old and in college I mean highschoolers and younger). The same could be said about someone buying weed for a minor if it was legal. So in a sense the kid still does get involved partially with a drug scene, but yes not nearly as much. Again this doesn't mean I don't agree on it being legalized and yes it will stop a lot of the gateway effect but not all of it since it would still be illegal for a minor.

And yes it is very easy to obtain Tobacco and liquor as a minor right now (I used to do it all the time) I won't argue that.


Plus, it also sounds like you might live in Meth country, which is giving you an overly harsh view of marijuana. Meth is extremely messed up and it makes people turn into complete assholes and pieces of human trash. So any dealer that deals in both meth and weed is going to be a complete scumbag.


Well I have done meth for like a week, but I wouldn't call it Meth country around here its more into Heroin and pills. But I think your getting the wrong impression I don't have a harsh view of marijuana. I believe it is a lot less damaging then alcohol like you said and should be legal as long as we can keep kids away from it until they are old enough to make a mature decision.

Zereo wrote:
I have nothing against weed smokers or smoking weed in general, in fact I am in favor of legalizing it.


Oh.

So then what's this thread about? lol
closed account (3qX21hU5)
In truth I dont really know lol
I met this one guy (called "Smoky" for some reason...) on a public beach in Jamaica. Huge, muscular Jamaican guy, and weed dealer. A few of my friends from the resort got practically 2 fist fulls of weed for $10. They claimed it was pretty good, which makes sense considering it was probably freshly grown nearby.
Point is, smoking a fatty, drinking some gin, or lighting up those cigarettes are stupid.

No one cares if "hemp" can be used millions of good ways, which that's an extreme overestimate of the truth.

Sure, hemp has its here and there, and may not be as bad as alcohol, but legal or not, I choose not to put that crap in me, to make me high, stoned, or intoxicated, "buzzed", etc.

AND I will hold the right to reject it being used or abused around me within breathing range.

The day weed is so widespread (if it becomes) that people are smoking it everywhere, getting high, stoned and drunk in the streets, and disturbing others with it is the day I visit the gun shop and settle the score.

BTW, "weed" is a psychoactive mood inhibitor, it's not some "fairy plant" that only makes you feel good and has no adverse effects.

In my honest and best opinion, keep weed illegal for rec purposes, make cigarettes and alcohol illegal as well, and when people get over their drug-dependent vices, maybe we can move on to a stronger society one day(unlikely)but a nice dream.
Last edited on
Lying Cataract wrote:
I will hold the right to reject it being used or abused around me.

You believe you have a right to restrict the rights of others?

BTW, "weed" is a psychoactive mood inhibitor, it's not some "fairy plant" that only makes you feel good and has no adverse effects.

No-one said that, you're misrepresenting the opposing position as being more extreme than it is to make it easier to "refute".

keep weed illegal for rec purposes, make cigarettes and alcohol illegal as well, and when people get over their drug-dependent vices, maybe we can move on to a stronger society one day(unlikely)but a nice dream.

Why should the fact that some people develop drug dependencies mean that no-one is allowed to take drugs? Some people are irresponsible with their money and anything else you can think of.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
So basically your rights cone before everyobe elses? In your opinion shouldnt tv abd video games and gambling be banned also since they can be addictive? How about caffeine? You have the right to reject itlike everyone else but you do not have the right to make people not smoke by you if you dont like dont hang out with them people or go somewhere else.
@lying caterphract what is
maybe we can move on to a stronger society


Is it a supportive one or do people go without temptation?


I would be uncomfortable with people in my company snurting class A's and so I know where you are coming from

I agree with the boys above tho' we have to tolerate all things society throws at us (to a tolerable degree) else we will be living in a 1984 like terror world where every ones very well behaved but one step out of line and your soilent green.

EDIT: theres a lot of meth in some parts of america it seems (i only have breaking bad to go on) what are meth people/crowds like? they seem like a crusty stoner hybrid
Last edited on
You believe you have a right to restrict the rights of others?

Yes. If something bothers me and it's forced upon me, around me or done near me, I won't live by it, around it, or with it in any form.

No-one said that, you're misrepresenting the opposing position as being more extreme than it is to make it easier to "refute".


Exactly. Is that a bad thing?

Why should the fact that some people develop drug dependencies mean that no-one is allowed to take drugs?


Because I don't use them. If you use them, go ahead, but within given formal laws, or personal choices, you won't be doing it around me.

So basically your rights cone before everyobe elses?

Never said that or implied it. Try working on grammar while you're at it.

In your opinion shouldnt tv abd video games and gambling be banned also since they can be addictive?


No. TV and video games aren't psychoactive, they don't intoxicate one's body, they're not mood inhibiting substances driven by chemicals. Although they can cause addiction, it's not impacting personal health or state of mind clarity as substances would.

You have the right to reject itlike everyone else but you do not have the right to make people not smoke by you if you dont like dont hang out with them people or go somewhere else.


If you're smoking "by me", get away from me, or I get away from you. If you smoke in a property I own, I throw you out. Not nicely either. I choose what's around me, and they can choose what's around them.

Last edited on
I've been honestly considering the development of a government run by myself, where there would be no existence of these substances, only the basic bare necessities, entertainments, but no street drugs, heavy medicine, etc.

There would basically be a "no tax" system where money would not be needed much, except for maybe food and property, dining out, entertainment, etc.

I would illegalize many a great drugs, and ban them.

There would be no over-the-counter drugs, as most "medicine" would be unnecessary unless you suffer from a disease or have a major infection, just clean it naturally, wipe it, wrap it and be done.

Also, you can forget about sexist media, gangs, drug problems, healthcare, shifty politicians, murderers, etc.

Those would also be banned. :D

Only the elite few minorities of civil-rule abiding humans and non-humans may exist in my theoretical government nation, where a government would be practically unnecessary as well, since the few would agree with most things, no problems would exist in most cases.

The Bill Of Changeable Rights Reads:

All data in this bill may be changed, re-organized, and challenged at any time by convention or national agreement.

The Rights Read Herein:

1.No use of street drugs, including Marijuana, Alcohol, Tobacco, Heroin, Ecstasy, Any Mood Inhibiting Psychoactive Substance, or the like.

2.No need to pay for education; knowledge, the internet, and endless resources, and your willingness determines who you want to become. There's no education system, schooling of any kind, and no jail system. Law breakers will be banned, deported, or penalized severly for breaking any agreed Rights.


What do you think? A good start, I'd say. XD
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Sounds like its been done before its called a dictatorship where someone thinks they know whats better for other people and that they cant make the right choices by theirself. And given how you stated that if they legalize weed you would "go into a gunshop and settle the score" I believe you are more then capable of it XD?
Last edited on
Lying Cataract wrote:
Yes. If something bothers me and it's forced upon me, around me or done near me, I won't live by it, around it, or with it in any form.

That's different, because if someone is smoking in your face, it's restricting your right to choose whether or not to smoke. However, you don't have a right to stop people from doing it in a way that doesn't affect you, and nor should you.

Is that a bad thing?

Yes, it's dishonest and fallacious, and it makes you look like a complete moron. Stop conceptualising arguments as being about "winning" and "being right" and start using them for what they're supposed to be used for - tools to find the truth, or at least the most-justified opinion.

Because I don't use them. If you use them, go ahead, but within given formal laws, or personal choices, you won't be doing it around me.

First you state that no-one should be allowed to use drugs, and then you state that it's okay for me to do it as long as it's not around you. That's a contradiction, unless I'm the one exmeption from your rule or something. Also, why should I not be allowed to do something just because you don't do it? You are not the gold standard for moral righteousness.

I've been honestly considering the development of a government run by myself

Said every 15 year old ever.

you can forget about sexist media, gangs, drug problems, healthcare, shifty politicians, murderers, etc.

You're seriously overestimating your ability to solve problems and enforce laws.

Only the elite few minorities of civil-rule abiding humans and non-humans may exist in my theoretical government nation, where a government would be practically unnecessary as well, since the few would agree with most things, no problems would exist in most cases.

And you have extremely unrealistic expectations.
Lying Cataract wrote:
Sure, hemp has its here and there, and may not be as bad as alcohol, but legal or not, I choose not to put that crap in me, to make me high, stoned, or intoxicated, "buzzed", etc.


Ditto. But I wouldn't go so far as to call it "stupid". It's recreational.

The day weed is so widespread (if it becomes) that people are smoking it everywhere, getting high, stoned and drunk in the streets, and disturbing others with it is the day I visit the gun shop and settle the score.


There would be laws against public intoxication just like there is now with alcohol. To think that legalizing weed would cause it to become some epidemic is just so incredibly ignorant.

The fact is, weed already is everywhere. And yeah, running into random stoned people is obnoxious, just like it's obnoxious to run into random drunk people.

BTW, "weed" is a psychoactive mood inhibitor, it's not some "fairy plant" that only makes you feel good and has no adverse effects.


The adverse effects are minimal, and temporary. I would say it probably is safer than sugar.... and people down sugar like it's candy (irony intended). Even if you ignore the upper/downer + mood altering effects of sugar... it also is proven to rot your teeth and make you fat when taken in excess.

Conversely:

- Marijuana is not known to cause lung cancer like tobacco (on the contrary, there are reports that claim it actually fights cancer).
- It is not addictive.
- It is virtually impossible to OD on (there are probably more cases of people getting sick from too much water than there are people getting sick from too much weed).
- It is not known to have long-term detrimental effects.

Really, there is nothing wrong with it.

In my honest and best opinion, keep weed illegal for rec purposes, make cigarettes and alcohol illegal as well, and when people get over their drug-dependent vices, maybe we can move on to a stronger society one day(unlikely)but a nice dream.


You need to study more history. They tried making alcohol illegal. It was called "prohibition". Look it up.

Spoilers: It didn't take. It caused more problems and costed more money than it was worth.

The same is true of the marijuana issue now. We are actively spending money and effort to fight something that 95% of the population doesn't care about. It's absurd. The sooner it's legalized the better off things will be for everyone.

Note that if you choose not to smoke it, that's fine. Your life will not be changed at all if it were made legal.
First it was: Driving under the influence of alcohol... *cue flashing police lights*
Next it was: Driving while texting... *cue blaring sirens*
Coming next fall to your home town.... Driving while high. *cue car crash simulation*


Woo! $ FINES $ FINES $ FINES $

Clearly this is the correct path.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6KXgjLqSTg
Since we're linking to youtube videos now. I think this is appropriate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1jk4F1757A
Disch wrote:
Marijuana is not known to cause lung cancer like tobacco

That's not strictly true if you smoke it, as I (think I) said before ITT smoking anything is going to mess up your lungs by virtue of the fact that you're breathing in smoke. Idk if tobacco is more carcinogenic than marijuana whether you smoke it or not, though, but I have read that a joint/blunt is more carcinogenic than a cigarette (but they often contain tobacco as well). However, vaporising and eating weed are perfectly safe for most people.

@Luc Lieber
Obviously driving while high will have the same legal consequences as driving while drunk. I'm not sure which impairs your motor skills and judgement more, but what I do know (from a quick Google search) is that people are less likely to drive while high than while drunk, and since both are equally illegal, I see no reason why that should change if weed were to be legalised.
Pages: 1234