[Cougar]

Calm down HD, make your objections in a more pleasant way please.

CI, unfortunately and rather obviously, we are not privy to your off forums discussions with Terez, so we have to react to what's writen on the screen not try to second guess your intention. Never mind though.

Terez, your claim about the vaporizer usage is just as unverifiable as any other claim about weed and it's effects since, as you say yourself, research is limited at best. Although it does seem likely it would be considerably better for you than smoking.

Having been around pot heads myself for a long time and watched them get older I'm fairly convinced (just anecdotally, it's not like this is possible to research in any meaningful way) that smoking large amounts of weed for a sustained period has adverse effects on memory and mental wellbeing. I doubt this is true for everyone but I've observed overall changes in peoples behaviour which I suspect are weed related.

Several studies gave pointed to increased chances of schizophrenia etc but I've no idea how they arrived at the conclusion as the sample population etc would never really be large enough.

I've always found it amusing how weed smokers claim regular usage doesn't have any day to day effects when you aren't strictly speaking stoned. In my experience you are fooling yourselves. I knew I was less motivated and stupider when I was smoking regularly and everyone else I knew was too, even if they denied it. I think these effects wear off, seemingly in some cases paranoia, insecurity and anxiety stick around a lot longer.

This post has been edited by Cougar: 21 July 2009 - 09:39 AM

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Terez: Of course, that's why I said "can" and not "always does."

HD: I think it's being overgenerous to say that most drunks do not drive. I have known a lot of drinkers over the years. I'd say over half of them drive drunk or buzzed at least every once in a while. Good work that you you don't, but a lot do.

[Terez]

@HD - not sure what you said, since it was edited, but I'm guessing that you were drunk whenever you wrote whatever it was. Way to prove a point that I really, honestly wasn't even trying to make. I was just making the point that paranoia isn't necessarily a horrible thing, and it's easy to use the negative effects of alcohol to put the negative effects of weed in perspective.

Again, Cougar, you're arguing against points that no one has made. No one has claimed that smoking large amounts of weed on a regular basis will not have negative effects in the long term, or even in the short.

Also:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70515151145.htm

This post has been edited by Terez: 21 July 2009 - 09:57 AM

[Yellow]

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on Jul 21 2009, 10:40 AM, said:

Terez: Of course, that's why I said "can" and not "always does."

HD: I think it's being overgenerous to say that most drunks do not drive. I have known a lot of drinkers over the years. I'd say over half of them drive drunk or buzzed at least every once in a while. Good work that you you don't, but a lot do.

I guess it depends on where you live, etc. I'd be shocked if any of my friends drink/drove.

[Cougar]

Terez I'd point out that you did claim earlier that weed motivates you instead of draining you of ambition, I'm sure this is how you feel about it, but you'd be the first person who I met whose output was improved by being stoned.

I'm not doubting how it makes you feel, I'm just doubting what the actual outcome is.

Lots of people think weed makes them more creative, more focused or inspires them but whilst they think that, I'd suggest that most of what they produce is worthless and incoherent. Hardly a scientific paper but a popular expression of this would be Chris explaining the effects of weed to Peter and Lois in Family Guy.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Yellow, on Jul 21 2009, 03:21 AM, said:

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on Jul 21 2009, 10:40 AM, said:

Terez: Of course, that's why I said "can" and not "always does."

HD: I think it's being overgenerous to say that most drunks do not drive. I have known a lot of drinkers over the years. I'd say over half of them drive drunk or buzzed at least every once in a while. Good work that you you don't, but a lot do.

I guess it depends on where you live, etc. I'd be shocked if any of my friends drink/drove.

Thankfully most of my friends have grown out of it, at least on a regular basis. Many of them still do it every once in a while. Stupid.

[Terez]

Cougar, on Jul 21 2009, 05:34 AM, said:

Terez I'd point out that you did claim earlier that weed motivates you instead of draining you of ambition, I'm sure this is how you feel about it, but you'd be the first person who I met whose output was improved by being stoned.

I'm not doubting how it makes you feel, I'm just doubting what the actual outcome is.

Lots of people think weed makes them more creative, more focused or inspires them but whilst they think that, I'd suggest that most of what they produce is worthless and incoherent. Hardly a scientific paper but a popular expression of this would be Chris explaining the effects of weed to Peter and Lois in Family Guy.

Your prejudice is showing. I get graded on the stuff I produce while I'm high, so I'm quite sure I know what I'm talking about. And yes, it does motivate me, and I'm not the only person like that - lots of people I know smoke to get stuff done. That doesn't equal a claim that weed has no harmful effects, which was the point that you were arguing against, despite no one having claimed it.

Also, where I'm from, almost everyone who drinks will drive drunk, if not all the time, then at least occasionally. I had a group of friends who stopped doing it after one of them ended up in jail for killing a woman and small child. And of course, the jail thing wasn't the motivator - the guy's pretty much fucked in the head for life for having caused those deaths, and the friends are still freaked about it. But it's a shame that it took a tragedy for them to finally have the motivation to not drink and drive.

[Anomander]

I have tried to avoid this topic for a long time, because as a pot smoker I felt I would get quite pissed with some of the misinformation and generalizations being thrown around. I'm happy to say it's gone better than I thought, but I still have chuckled quite a bit at some posts.

The whole idea of mixing bud with tabacco is terrible in my opinion. My biggest problem with doing this is because if you're a regular smoker than you'll also be regularly smoking small amounts of cigarettes and I worry about developing an addiction to that. The taste is not a big issue, especially now with things like cigarellos and whatnot that are flavoured. Unfortunately this is a popular way of rolling joints in Eastern Canada but that's likely because we also have a lot of cigarette smokers.

In terms of quality I'm going to claim Canada has the best bud, in particular British Columbia. I've heard from many people that Amsterdam doesn't have all that great of bud, and the US (mostly outside of California) is hampered by their ridiculous drug laws. I'm also astounded at how much Terez says an ounce of prime stuff costs, but again owe that to where she lives.

I'm quite puzzled about the negative attitudes regarding bongs in particular. I don't see how they're a dirty thing as some have claimed, in one case connecting it to the image of a street bum. Understandably they're a poor choice if you're out and about, but in your own home they're awesome to have kicking around. The water helps cool down the smoke a lot which saves you from having your insides burned. I tend to notice if I use that route to smoke for a couple weeks that I really find joints and pipes harsh when I next use them. I have yet to try a vapourizer due to their current cost (roughly 80-90 bucks last I checked) but I've heard good things. Unless I'm mistaken it completely eliminates the smoke and leaves only THC in a vapour form to inhale, which must cut down on the effects to your body somewhat.

On the issue of health I won't even begin to say weed is harmless. I have personally noted a deminished lung capacity since I began to smoke regularly although my lungs were never stellar to begin with (whole family smokes, so 20 odd years of 2nd hand smoke). I find though that it clears up relatively quick once I quit cold turkey. When comparing it to tobacco smoke I wouldn't be surprised that it can just as easily lead to lung cancer, but I believe that's mostly when comparing similar amounts of both types of smoke. Considering most steady pot smokers tend to use a pipe or bong they're in fact using substantially less pot and thus aren't inhaling that much smoke. Plus, as has been noted before, you can only reach a certain level of high before you'll fall asleep and even then if you get repeatedly high in one day it works less and less each time (burn out). Although if you're actually ingesting the pot in the form of cookies or brownies I can imagine it's not terribly difficult to have too much.

Anywho, back to the OP. Considering pot is absolutely everywhere in Canada and not at all difficult to find I'm quite indifferent to legalizing it or not. In a country where the laws are much stricker I could see it being a problem initially with people over indulging but I'm think that would level out pretty quickly. The biggest issue is that you would need to regulate much like liquor and I'm not sure how that would be possible.

Cougar said:

Terez I'd point out that you did claim earlier that weed motivates you instead of draining you of ambition, I'm sure this is how you feel about it, but you'd be the first person who I met whose output was improved by being stoned.

Actually, I can somewhat agree with Terez on this. I personally am not super productive when high but one of my best friends over the last year has lived in a perpetual state of stoned. He manages school, a job, a girlfriend and still writes and plays music in a band with little to no problem. Although I worry about him for health reasons and because it's becoming more of an addiction I can't deny that he's productive as hell while high.

[Obdigore]

@Anomander -

I maintain the biggest problem is enforcing the 'don't smoke and drive' laws. You can never know in a legal certainty that someone is stonned or not when you pull them over. You can find it in their system, but unlike alchohal, you cannot give them a test to see if they are currently under the influence that would be acceptable in a court of law (at least in the US)

[Illuyankas]

INSPIRATION

Thumbprint scanner/bloodtest needle instead of a car key! Removes driving under the influence worries, a large number of theft concerns, and would be hideously expensive! I'm a genius.

[Obdigore]

Illuyankas, on Jul 21 2009, 10:34 AM, said:

INSPIRATION

Thumbprint scanner/bloodtest needle instead of a car key! Removes driving under the influence worries, a large number of theft concerns, and would be hideously expensive! I'm a genius.

They have breathalizer tests for cars already.

How would this prevent someone that is high from driving?

[Terez]

Anomander said:

Anywho, back to the OP. Considering pot is absolutely everywhere in Canada and not at all difficult to find I'm quite indifferent to legalizing it or not. In a country where the laws are much stricker I could see it being a problem initially with people over indulging but I'm think that would level out pretty quickly.

I might be indifferent for the same reasons, if not for the fact that it could most certainly be sold for a lot cheaper if it were legal. It costs less to produce than tobacco, and tobacco goes for way less than $10 an oz., and that's including the ridiculous taxes on it.

Anomander said:

Considering most steady pot smokers tend to use a pipe or bong they're in fact using substantially less pot and thus aren't inhaling that much smoke.

I have asthma, and I find that pipes and bongs are harder on my lungs. Also, they are conspicuous, and I have to smoke in the car. (Also, @Obdi...most stoned drivers go ten below in the right lane - paranoia does have its uses. I go the speed limit, but I drive a lot safer when I'm stoned. Not trying to condone stoned driving, though, really...if it were legal I wouldn't have to take a ride to smoke it...I could just go outside and smoke it.)

Anomander said:

Plus, as has been noted before, you can only reach a certain level of high before you'll fall asleep and even then if you get repeatedly high in one day it works less and less each time (burn out).

Exactly - this is the point I have been trying to make to CI, but he seems to be purposefully not understanding it. It doesn't work like alcohol or most other drugs, where drinking/taking more will get you more fucked up. It just makes you progressively stupider.

Another thing that it takes potheads forever to learn, if they ever learn it - you don't have to smoke until you're high. You can waste a lot of weed that way, because the high creeps up on you. Best to take a puff or two and wait a few minutes, and then smoke a little more if you need to.

[Illuyankas]

@Obdi: You know, I have no idea how easily pot shows up in blood tests.

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 21 July 2009 - 03:44 PM

[Obdigore]

Illuyankas, on Jul 21 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

@Obdi: You know, I have no idea how easily pot shows up in blood tests.

The traces show up very easily. They also stay in your system for a while, and show up in your urine for up to a month unless you flush your system out with a whole lot of water.

[Terez]

Another thing is that most people would rather not smoke and drive at all. It is a sit-and-chill-inducing drug, rather than a drug that inspires you to get up and go places. Also, the high wears off a lot quicker than drunkenness.

[Anomander]

Obdigore, on Jul 21 2009, 12:30 PM, said:

@Anomander -

I maintain the biggest problem is enforcing the 'don't smoke and drive' laws. You can never know in a legal certainty that someone is stonned or not when you pull them over. You can find it in their system, but unlike alchohal, you cannot give them a test to see if they are currently under the influence that would be acceptable in a court of law (at least in the US)

This is my biggest concern as well. Especially because it's easy to mask/eliminate the smell of pot and most stoners I know no longer even get red eye. I would suggest it be at the discretion of the officer, but there are a hella lot crooked cops out there so that would have plenty of problems as well.

Apparently cranberry juice flushes your system of THC super quick, enough so that it doesn't register in a urine test after a week or so. This was proved by a good buddy of mine who picked up a summer job working with explosives; he was required to take a urine test to show he wouldn't be fucked up while working around such dangerous material. Although I'm not sure how effective it is when taking a blood test to check for drugs, I think it'll still show up for ages afterwards.

[Cougar]

Terez, what prejudice? Against weed smokers? I am one. Also I fail to understand your point about arguing against nobody, I'm making a point,it doesn't have to be an argument.

I've smoked boatloads of the stuff in my life, had loads of friends of the highest intellect who did it, we all got degrees from top universities whilst smoking lots (these guys are barristers, lawyers, doctors and scientists amongst other things) but the bottom line is yes we could get work done but it was a fuck sight harder stoned all the time.

If you are an intelligent person you'll still get shit done, but you'll make a whole load of mistakes that you don't even see, writing numbers down incorrectly, forgetting things without realising it (obviously), your reactions will be dulled long after you've stopped, powers of deductive reasoning are reduced. All common and well known effects. If you believe that you can produce academic work of the highest quality while baked then great. I've played gigs wasted, it doesn't mean I'd want to have a bash at a Jazz fusion masterpiece half cut, it just means I can manage to an acceptable level, which is not the same as being uneffected or even as you seem to be suggesting Terez, operating at a higher level?

[Anomander]

I'm realizing I may have come across as condoning certain activities while stoned (ie. driving, school, etc). While I know people who successfully do this I personally don't agree with it. You're reaction time is slowed while high so driving is a big nono, and I'm in the midst of an engineering degree so once again I don't think you can get high and correctly do any work involving higher level physics, mathematics, etc.

[HoosierDaddy]

I don't remember what I said, but I know I wasn't driving when I said it. Also, lots of drunks drive. I'm one of the more responsible ones. I have no idea what I was thinking.

Edit: I'll go ahead and apologize for whatever I said. If it got mod-edited I was stupid.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 21 July 2009 - 07:34 PM

[Terez]

lmao @ HD, not driving