This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
420
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
It's like you're in some magical fantasy land.
No!
Post by
Ienzo
It's like you're in some magical fantasy land.
No!
Yes!
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Is he though? Will it really have a significant bearing on his health? Why do you care that it is against the law, if the law is flawed? What difference does the law innately make?
Yes. Marijuana and the like are much worse for you than cigarettes (at least he way most people smoke them).
I giggled. Who told you that, your parents? Your school teacher?
And yes, even if the law is flawed I don't like people breaking it, because they are breaking the part that
isn't
flawed.
So you don't mind them breaking an unflawed flawed law? What?
Post by
Orranis
I want general rules, although society has an innate feeling of what is right and what is wrong. Just because it's not written on a Hebrew scroll or on an official document, I believe we would still figure that killing is bad.
Sure we do. But can you explain why without referring to concepts such as rights, life, death, and justice? Will your explanation be worth anything if none of those words have an objective meaning? If we want a moral society, we want everyone to live by the same moral rules, which are (hopefully) grounded in abstract yet logical ethical reasoning. Wouldn't it be a good idea to write all that down, then?
Of course. It's evolutionary.
It would be a good idea to write them down, I'm just against the idea of "When X happens, Y is punishment."
Post by
Monday
I giggled. Who told you that, your parents? Your school teacher?
Studies from... Harvard I think it was.
Basically marijuana cigarettes or joints or whatever htey are called have about 4x as much tar in them as regular ciagrettes.
Edit: I misunderstood. This is what I was thinking ofA recent study highlights the fact that smoking one “joint” of marijuana is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in a pack. People who did so were equally at risk of developing lung cancer similar to those who smoked cigarettes a bit too many. Team leader Richard Beasley claims that cannabis smokers have five times more of carbon monoxide in their bloodstreamas compared to tobacco smokers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you don't mind them breaking an unflawed flawed law? What?
The law is flawed because it doesn't ban all harmful drugs, but it part of it isn't flawed because it does ban various other drugs.
Thus the law itself is flawed, but they are breaking a part of the law that isn't flawed.
Post by
Orranis
I giggled. Who told you that, your parents? Your school teacher?
Studies from... Harvard I think it was.
Basically marijuana cigarettes or joints or whatever htey are called have about 4x as much tar in them as regular ciagrettes.
This does not mean it's 'worse' for you, for several reasons.
Marijuana smokers generally don't chain smoke, and
so they smoke less. (Marijuana is not physically
addictive like tobacco.) The more potent marijuana
is, the less a smoker will use at a time.
Tobacco contains nicotine, and marijuana doesn't.
Nicotine may harden the arteries and may be
responsible for much of the heart disease caused by
tobacco. New research has found that it may also
cause a lot of the cancer in tobacco smokers and
people who live or work where tobacco is smoked.
This is because it breaks down into a cancer causing
chemical called `N Nitrosamine' when it is burned
(and maybe even while it is inside the body as well.)
Marijuana contains THC. THC is a bronchial dilator,
which means it works like a cough drop and opens up
your lungs, which aids clearance of smoke and dirt.
Nicotine does just the opposite; it makes your lungs
bunch up and makes it harder to cough anything up.
There are benefits from marijuana (besides bronchial
dilation) that you don't get from tobacco. Mainly,
marijuana makes you relax, which improves your health
and well-being.
So you don't mind them breaking an unflawed flawed law? What?
The law is flawed because it doesn't ban all harmful drugs, but it part of it isn't flawed because it does ban various other drugs.
Thus the law itself is flawed, but they are breaking a part of the law that isn't flawed.
So you don't think people have the right to do what they want with their lives? I could see outlawing tobacco because it has near to know benefits, but if it has both positive and negative effects, shouldn't it be up to the taker to take the risk? You would punish someone with jailtime for punishing themselves?
Post by
Squishalot
So you don't think people have the right to do what they want with their lives? I could see outlawing tobacco because it has near to know benefits, but if it has both positive and negative effects, shouldn't it be up to the taker to take the risk? You would punish someone with jailtime for punishing themselves?
Do you believe that euthanasia and/or suicide (attempted) should be legal or illegal?
Post by
Monday
Orranis, take a look at my edited post. It might not change what you said, but...
So you don't think people have the right to do what they want with their lives? I could see outlawing tobacco because it has near to know benefits, but if it has both positive and negative effects, shouldn't it be up to the taker to take the risk? You would punish someone with jailtime for punishing themselves?
IMHO if it has some pretty negative effects and not very many positive ones then yes it should be outlawed.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
One could argue that certain branches/ religions have less positive value than they have net negative worth. Would you ban them? Its a very subjective and dangerous slope you are going down that frankly you shouldn't be going down. Side note, pot doesn't have huge negative drawbacks. I think this boils down to how much and what kind of parentalism can someone take
Freedom of religion. 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
you're using the law to defend the law?
It's the Constitution. People signed away their rights to restrict religion. Don't mix 'law' with it.
Post by
mindthegap5
May I direct everyone's attention to
this website
Now there's a big ass list of studies on there, so go look it all up :)
Oh, hello again.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
Would you mind sourcing the study? I'd like to see how it was conducted and what other factors were brought into play. Last time I checked, lung cancer has never been directly linked to marijuana, unlike cigarettes. Even though you crossed out your point on tar, I'd still like to bring up the point that pot smokers usually smoke the bud from the plant, not the stem; the buds contain 66% less tar than a cigarette. The reason that it still has tar is because joints don't come with filters, like cigarettes. If you use a vaporizer or a water bong, or in some cases even a pipe, you can eliminate almost all of the tar present. Marijuana also doesn't cause the bronchioles to constrict, which is what cigarettes do.
Also, 98% of people with emphysema are cigarette smokers, which is pretty damning. Yes, some may smoke weed as well, but this shows that lung diseases and smoking are inherently linked. It's...difficult to study the effects of weed, because you use cigarettes to help make a joint, in many cases. Thus, you can't really say if it's the weed or the actual cigarette ingredients causing cancers and other diseases.
Post by
Monday
Here is the link.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.