Board Thread:Warhammer 40k General Discussion/@comment-6767898-20130409140103/@comment-1657156-20130414194909

Callummacdonald79 wrote: i'm afraid that that link just typifies the stereotypical hysteria that accompanies any prominent members of society - who are clueless. and the masses follow.

Them's fighting words.

i never said it wasn't addictive but that particular addiction is purely psychological, marijuana has been scientifically (in this country at least) proven to not be physically addictive. any physical addiction in this regard stems solely from the tobacco it's smoked with - nicotine addiction.

'''Brown University would assert otherwise. The very fact that heavy users need multiple times the dose than infrequent users is an indication of tolereance development which in turn means that physical addiction is a real possibility, too.'''

http://my.jetscreenshot.com/2306/20130414-cvd5-58kb

consumption inadvertantly goes too far? i refer you to addictive personalities, there are far more dangerous ways that people enjoy life than using drugs.

'''Mmm. Not really. I can think of a FEW things that MAYBE fit that description. Street racing, skydiving, kick-boxing... but these are uncommon activities compared to marijuana consumption; and even then, they're legal in only limited contexts.'''

i've tried many things and there's many more i would like to try, and in my decades of experimentation i have not once been led onto 'something stronger'.

'''That's right. You haven't. And neither has your cousin. Or your neighbor. But your cousin's brother, and your neighbor's brother, weren't so lucky. Being 'led on to stronger stuff' is not an inevitability, but it is a real possibility.'''

what if the ends an individual seeks is to be stoned? there are no other ways to achieve that except to get stoned. don't think i'm saying "hey drugs are awesome, do as many as you can.", i most assuredly am not because while i use i have also abused, and trust me, there is a huge difference. while i will always advocate the legalization, or at the least decriminalization, of all drugs, i fully respect peoples opinions to the contrary.

'''Yes, there is a difference. And if we could, in practice, legalize marijuana in a manner where 9-14% of the users would not 'go too far in their consumption' (whether that means developing an addiction, moving on to stronger stuff, or smoking the stuff while driving, etc.), then it would be a different matter. But we can't do that in practice. Ergo, the question: 'Do we sacrifice the right of 90% of would-be marijuana users to smoke responsobily, in order to prevent 10% of them from 'going too far?' Libertarians would say "hell no." But I've been around the block enough times to realize that the responsobile among us really do need to make some sacrifices or put up with some inconveniences so as to prevent the imbeciles among us from hurting themselves. That's why there's seatbelt laws. The responsobile among us would buckle-up every time whether there was a law or not. The imbeciles will do so only if such a law exists. While this reeks of 'nanny-state-ism', I prefer giving up certain petty freedoms (such as not having to remember to buckle-up under penalty of law) for myself, so that the imbeciles don't get hurt.'''

it produces smoke....well, yeah. as does every petrol, diesel or hybrid car on earth. anyone who owns and drives such vehicles can't take that path of morality. vehicles cause an unparalleled degree of damage, to humans and the environment, and that's simply in their manufacture, let alone actual fuel pollution. human deaths caused by vehicles, either from traffic accidents or from their carcinogenic emissions, number more that deaths caused by all illegal drugs combined.

'''Mmm... yeah, I'm gonna stop you right there. While having automobiles on the road does present certain dangers and certain heavy costs, there are tremendously many more gains by having them on the road that outweigh those costs. Gun nuts try to make the same analogy too: 'cars kill more people than guns, so why not illegalize cars?' It's a spurious argument because they know that the 'costs' that would result from banning guns are microscopic compared to the 'costs' from banning cars.'''

'''And anyway... the reason I brought up smoke is that it's the 'WELL DUH' evidence that marijuana is unhealthy. Other things that emit smoke -- like fireplaces and cars -- are unhealthy too. Which is why we do things to minimize the smoke like using scrubbers or installing exhaust pipes or chimmnies. '''

have you ever seen someone who hasn't had their "morning coffee"? pale, cold, trembling? that is caffiene withdrawl and works exactly the same as heroin withdrawl, only much, much quicker.

by the way, what's you're opinion on alcohol?

'''Mmmm... we'd be better off without it, probably. Incidentally, during 'prohibition', worker productivity increased dramatically .'''

and incidentally, marijuana has been, and is continuing to be, proven to relieve the symptoms of many ailments, far more effectively and safely, than pharmaceuticals.

That remains to be seen.