What I wish was illegal is the ciggy companies putting in the bad shit into their cigarettes to make them addictive.
Treblaine said:If you want to huff irritants, don't let any of them come my way. I've stood down wind of a camp fire and gotten less smoke in my face as when I had to queue behind some smoker blowing smoke everywhere. He looked at me like I just asked to sleep with his wife when I discretely asked him not to do that as his tobacco smoke was irritating me. He used the "it's not going to kill you" excuse. Well I supposed if he spritzed me with tear-gas that wouldn't kill be either, but either way my eyes are bloodshot and watering.David Woon said:hey look i'm about to have a cigarette -puts cigarette in mouth and lights it- -puts up middle finger- DEAL WITH IT
PS: and do not just throw your used cigarette butt on the ground when you are done. I know it's incendiary, smelly and has tar oozing from the filter but that's your problem, should not be all of our littering problem. Carry around a metal box to extinguish and store it therein till you find a bin, but I've yet to meet a smoker who actually does that.
Is knocking the embers off and putting the butt back down in the pack until I find a bin (or a drain under extreme circumstances) well enough? It's my usual method, can't stand people leaving whole droves of butts wherever they go.Treblaine said:PS: and do not just throw your used cigarette butt on the ground when you are done. I know it's incendiary, smelly and has tar oozing from the filter but that's your problem, should not be all of our littering problem. Carry around a metal box to extinguish and store it therein till you find a bin, but I've yet to meet a smoker who actually does that.
LastGreatBlasphemer said:It's not so much a claim that obesity would sky rocket, so much as a belief based on very little data. It's not exactly a country known for choosing salad over bacon burger.chadachada123 said:Well...hm...I'll see if there's anything that I can salvage from my original statement.
Other than disagreeing with your claim that obesity would skyrocket if weed was legalized, and disagreeing that just because the law currently is (and always has been) unfair that it isn't unconstitutionally and morally reprehensible and should be fixed to be balanced...
(Edit: to be clear, I'm arguing against complacency. If you require a license to own a dog but not to have children, there's a big problem. If you can drive a 4000 pound steel cage at 16 but have to be 18 or 21 to buy a gun, there's a problem. If you can be paid to star in porn or paid to be a stripper but can't be paid to be a prostitute, there's a big problem. All of these incongruities need to be fixed if we're to call ourselves a free or just nation, which I'd LIKE to see sometime during my life, and I consider weed being illegal while alcohol is legal to be one of these hurdles that needs to be put into the limelight)
I guess I pretty much concede. I would note that when I said the cigarettes were worse than weed, I meant Marlboros and the like. I can only guess that by "Native Red," you mean a cigar or something else that uses pure tobacco?
Oh don't get me wrong, the laws are most definitely fucked and need to be fixed. I was just shooting down the notion of fairness in the law. A man who is old enough to die for his country should damn well be allowed a beer.
But yes, Native Reds are a cigar, and yes, Marlboros are god awful for you. Tobacco isn't as bad for you as you may think, it's all the harmful chemicals that are added to it that are killing people. And that's what should be made illegal. How does somebody even get away with that?
You know, I was starting to feel that this was a fairly weak point while I was writing it, and now I'm almost certain that it is. While having something be illegal probably makes abusing it feel somewhat more rebellious, as long as you're going against the advice and wishes of the authority figures in your life, doing drugs will probably always be a staple of "teen rebellion", regardless of legality issues.Eamar said:I wouldn't bet on it- that's how most of the cigarette smokers I know got started. By which I mean it's legal, they knew the health risks and just got into it to "rebel." I never understood that, it's not even like you get high off a cigarette... I swear the only reason for it was to piss off their parents, which is pretty pathetic when you think about it.DanDeFool said:That, and I'd wager a lot of drug use starts out as rebellion. Somehow, I don't think saying, "hey guys, let's go take some of this perfectly legal substance that will severely damage our health and won't get us in trouble in any way" has quite the same advertising appeal.
You would start by reading this:Buretsu said:I'm sorry, but can you explain why one would think that giving people easier access to mind-altering substances is a good thing? It doesn't make sense to me. There are a lot of people out there who are refraining from causing severe damage to themselves and risking the lives and well-being of those around them, because drugs being illegal and risky to obtain keep them from seeking them out.Treblaine said:Big Snip
For that matter, the decriminalization of possession of dangerous drugs like coke and meth also baffles me. A cop takes away what a druggie is currently holding and just sends him on his way, and he just goes back home where the rest of his stash is waiting for him. And nothing ends up resolved.
I may just be a cynic, but I honestly don't understand how someone can say things like this, except in a hypothetical 'perfect world' situation.
Not to mention the fires. How many thousands of acres of pine forest have been destroyed because some douche threw their cigarette out the window on a hot summer day instead of disposing of it properly? Who knows, but I'll bet it's a lot.Quiet Stranger said:Treblaine said:If you want to huff irritants, don't let any of them come my way. I've stood down wind of a camp fire and gotten less smoke in my face as when I had to queue behind some smoker blowing smoke everywhere. He looked at me like I just asked to sleep with his wife when I discretely asked him not to do that as his tobacco smoke was irritating me. He used the "it's not going to kill you" excuse. Well I supposed if he spritzed me with tear-gas that wouldn't kill be either, but either way my eyes are bloodshot and watering.David Woon said:hey look i'm about to have a cigarette -puts cigarette in mouth and lights it- -puts up middle finger- DEAL WITH IT
PS: and do not just throw your used cigarette butt on the ground when you are done. I know it's incendiary, smelly and has tar oozing from the filter but that's your problem, should not be all of our littering problem. Carry around a metal box to extinguish and store it therein till you find a bin, but I've yet to meet a smoker who actually does that.
I'm with ya on the last part, I see so many people just throw their butts out their car window 9you have an ash tray in there for a reason you moron!!) I fucking hate those people.
Hmm, I suppose embers aren't a problem. Every person in a day emit as much small particulates as dandruff, skin cells, etc.Muspelheim said:Is knocking the embers off and putting the butt back down in the pack until I find a bin (or a drain under extreme circumstances) well enough? It's my usual method, can't stand people leaving whole droves of butts wherever they go.Treblaine said:PS: and do not just throw your used cigarette butt on the ground when you are done. I know it's incendiary, smelly and has tar oozing from the filter but that's your problem, should not be all of our littering problem. Carry around a metal box to extinguish and store it therein till you find a bin, but I've yet to meet a smoker who actually does that.
I also agree that you shouldn't be smoking when standing in a queue or in a poorly ventilated enviroment. It's one thing going down a street with plenty of space and air, but it's just rude when people are more or less stuck with being packed against you. It's easy as pie to just knock it off and save it for later.
Also, remember those "what's your anti-drug?" PSAs? I think those were among the best ones ever produced (not really saying much, but whatever), because they sort of made the point "hey kids, life is hard enough without having to deal with substance abuse on top of everything else".Treblaine said:You would start by reading this:Buretsu said:I'm sorry, but can you explain why one would think that giving people easier access to mind-altering substances is a good thing? It doesn't make sense to me. There are a lot of people out there who are refraining from causing severe damage to themselves and risking the lives and well-being of those around them, because drugs being illegal and risky to obtain keep them from seeking them out.Treblaine said:Big Snip
For that matter, the decriminalization of possession of dangerous drugs like coke and meth also baffles me. A cop takes away what a druggie is currently holding and just sends him on his way, and he just goes back home where the rest of his stash is waiting for him. And nothing ends up resolved.
I may just be a cynic, but I honestly don't understand how someone can say things like this, except in a hypothetical 'perfect world' situation.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.379481.14894494
The very thing you quoted me from.
Incredulity is not argument but a fallacy (which is precisely what "It doesn't make sense to me" is), the effect of marijuana are not as bad affect of the enforcement of laws banning it. How does eating a marijuana brownie endanger either them or the well-being of those around them? What is the problem with mind altering when so many innocuous things alter the mind. Being imprisoned for possession of marijuana is far worse for their life, health and wellbeing than if they'd just consumed it and followed all other laws. Same with ecstasy tablets, they are just not that dangerous nor addictive.
The cops gives the option of NOT confiscating dangerous drugs IF they turn temporary informant. I did make clear how important it is that the police get good human intel If addicts lie, THEN they go to prison. They couldn't plead the 5th amendment as it isn't a crime to buy or own dangerous drugs but they still have the right to remain silent. The point is the police don't have the time nor resources to imprison every addict. Nor is prison necessarily an appropriate place for drug addicts. The police can get really good, every time they catch a druggie with a stash, they can squeeze more intel out of them.
I thought it was obvious that imprisoning the MILLIONS of people addicted the dangerous drugs is an extremely foolish thing to do. They need to be persuaded to willingly enter sobriety programs. Forcing or coercing people into sobriety programs is starting from the worst possible position.
The people who did wrongs onto others are the dealers in dangerous drugs, THEY belong in prison.
If it doesn't make sense, then ask for a clarification and THEN make your case.Buretsu said:I never said that was the only reason stopping someone. Please stop attacking me based on what you think I said.DanDeFool said:Bottom line, the point Buretsu made about legality and risk keeping most people away from drugs is like when religious people say that without religion we'd all be murderers and rapists and thieves.
Furthermore, it's not the same idea at all. There are obvious moral reasons why murder, rape and theft are wrong to do, moral reasons that don't exist with drugs. In fact, there's a counter-culture that explicitly glorifies drug usage. Driving while drunk is considered to be a horrible thing to do, but driving while stoned is an amusing anecdote or even a major motion picture.
It honestly doesn't make sense to me. That's not a fallacy, but a personal truth.Treblaine said:Incredulity is not argument but a fallacy (which is precisely what "It doesn't make sense to me" is)
Just gonna quote a bit of Hicks for this one...Link55 said:Weed is less harmful than cigarettes. At least weed help people in a way. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette. And in what way does a cigarette help anybody. If you know a way please tell me. But they should just ban them without hesitation.
Sorry to tell you this, but all burnables produce carbon monoxide, a chemical harmful to the body. I assure you, once marijuana is legal, they'll use pesticides and fertilizers on it too as well as chemical curing agents and chemically treated paper. On top of that, regular use causes distorted perception, memory and learning difficulties, loss of coordination, and increased heart rate as well as reduced blood pressure. Those are the short-term post-high effects documented. Long-term frequent users develop the same lung issues as tobacco smokers. Taking a single hit occasionally may not do this, but smoking several joints is another story. While it is not linked to cancer, cancer isn't the only thing that happens to tobacco smokers, what with cannabis containing three times the tar of its nicotine counterpart. THC itself has been shown to impede the immune system. I'd cite my sources, but most proponents automatically don't trust "the Man" or frankly anyone who disagrees.Link55 said:Weed is less harmful than cigarettes. At least weed help people in a way. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette. And in what way does a cigarette help anybody. If you know a way please tell me. But they should just ban them without hesitation.