Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44
  1. santas's Avatar
    Posts
    624 Posts
    Global Posts
    641 Global Posts
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I dont live in Denver
    Me neither
    Less than 400 posts to get my own little treo icon!
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by santa
    No one is saying it's health food. Yes, it's not good for your body. Neither are about 1,000 other things. Probably about of what you can buy in a grocery store would have a similar list of bad things that it can do to your body on the health side.

    If you want government to take on the nanny role, then they should ban:

    Tobacco
    Alchohol
    Big Macs
    Anything with Palm Oil in it
    Maybe even the internal cumbustion engine.

    (as an aside, from what little I remember when I read about this, Marijuana is not "physically" addictive. It can be "psychologically" adictive. That's can be true of a lot of things, both consumables and activities. Alcohol and tobacco are "physically" addictive.)
    I am just rambling in the wind......I think the main difference between a Big Mac and Marijuana is when I eat a Big Mac, and do something like drive, I maybe ready for a nap, but I rarely experience acute toxic psychosis, which includes hallucinations, delusions, and depersonalization that would immediately impair my judgement and my ability to act responsibly which endangers others. Studies show that approximately 6 to 11 percent of fatal accident victims test positive for THC. In many of these cases, alcohol is detected as well.

    As far as addiction, I am not a Doctor, but I taught At-Risk youth for 4 years which included extensive teen drug counseling and simply from the studies I have read they have been fairly consistently stating that around 10-25% of Marijuana users become physically addicted with physical withdrawal symptoms. So it is there, but certainly not as high of a user base percentage as tobacco and alcohol.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    If I don't have enough sense to know better, should I have the right to smoke cancer sticks in my own home if I am exposing my innocent children to second hand smoke? It saddens me to witness kids stuck in cars with a smoker.
    Exposing children is another matter. Yes that is wrong with alcohol, tobacco, marijuana.....and BIG MACS! It saddens me to witness kids growing to the size of cars because they are being raised on big macs and coke...

    Parents need to take responsibility for many things, not just second hand smoke. In my opinion, that is an entirely different thread than this one. If it were up to me, there'd be a test to become a parent....and most of this country would fail miserably today!
    "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
    - Albert Einstein
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by ExtraOrdinaryJo
    I could understand you wanting cigarette smokin IN PUBLIC banned (I agree with this entirely), but cigarettes in general? Why? Shouldn't this be every individuals' personal choice? If someone wants to smoke in their home, that's their business.

    I'm not a smoker, but I think that our society concerns itself far too much in what people should and shouldn't do. I feel that if it does not effect others, let them be.
    (I really am more for individual rights but for arguments sake... )

    The reason why I said what I said (that sounds 'wordy') was because the original post made the reference to rational choice and choosing the less 'dangerous' of the two activities.

    Are there any health benefits to smoking? (I can't think of any ). Are there any health dangers (arguably there are a 100 harmful effects). Rational choice indicates that we 'shouldn't' do it.

    ExtraOrdinaryJo: you questioned allowing it in the privacy of your own home because it only affects you. I see cigarettes (and there have been many journals and case studies on the economic/health effects) as having a HUGE financial impact on our society.

    link
    Cigarette smoking in the United States causes serious illnesses among an estimated 8.6 million persons (1) and approximately 440,000 deaths annually (2), resulting in $157 billion in health-related economic costs (2).
    Imagine (assuming that statistic were true) what 157 billion dollars would allow us to do for basic health care for every person? (and if you are against national health care for everyone...think about how that money could be used for medical advances instead.)

    Weigh that against the supposed 'benefits' of smoking? (I still don't see any )

    (As an aside, obviously I don't smoke so it's difficult at best for me to make the argument that we should allow it. )

    Now before we go any further with an analogy...I am not making the argument that we should apply this rational choice process to other recreational activities (I like my beer during my football games on the weekends in between studies. )
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I am just rambling in the wind......I think the main difference between a Big Mac and Marijuana is when I eat a Big Mac, and do something like drive, I maybe ready for a nap, but I rarely experience acute toxic psychosis, which includes hallucinations, delusions, and depersonalization that would immediately impair my judgement and my ability to act responsibly which endangers others. Studies show that approximately 6 to 11 percent of fatal accident victims test positive for THC. In many of these cases, alcohol is detected as well.

    As far as addiction, I am not a Doctor, but I taught At-Risk youth for 4 years which included extensive teen drug counseling and simply from the studies I have read they have been fairly consistently stating that around 10-25% of Marijuana users become physically addicted with physical withdrawal symptoms. So it is there, but certainly not as high of a user base percentage as tobacco and alcohol.
    Show me statistics on people experiencing "acute toxic psychosis" after smoking a joint.

    Hallucinations? Delusions? Come on...really? Is this the same marijuana I remember? Talk about propaganda. Reminds me of the film made in the 20's called Reefer Madness...guy smokes like one hit from a joint and goes crazy and jumps out a window....ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN FACT.

    You are aware, aren't you, that, unlike alcohol, you can test positive for THC months after actually smoking marijuana?

    I have not stated anywhere that I think people should be allowed to drive under the influence of marijuana. They should not. In fact, the only thing people should be allowed to do while driving is.....DRIVE! No eating, drinking, smoking, checking makeup, etc. Again, this is not the topic of this thread.

    10-25% of marijuana become physically addicted? Reall? SHOW ME THE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES. I have never read of one single proven case of physical addiction, or "escalation". No, it is not a gateway drug. That's a load of propaganda crap as well. Psychology addiction is another matter, but many, many things that are bad for us fall into that category.

    Read some history. Do you know why marijuana is illegal today? The short answer is political agendas...here's one recount for you:

    http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stori...naIllegal.html
    "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
    - Albert Einstein
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    (I really am more for individual rights but for arguments sake... )

    The reason why I said what I said (that sounds 'wordy') was because the original post made the reference to rational choice and choosing the less 'dangerous' of the two activities.

    Are there any health benefits to smoking? (I can't think of any ). Are there any health dangers (arguably there are a 100 harmful effects). Rational choice indicates that we 'shouldn't' do it.

    ExtraOrdinaryJo: you questioned allowing it in the privacy of your own home because it only affects you. I see cigarettes (and there have been many journals and case studies on the economic/health effects) as having a HUGE financial impact on our society.

    link
    Imagine (assuming that statistic were true) what 157 billion dollars would allow us to do for basic health care for every person? (and if you are against national health care for everyone...think about how that money could be used for medical advances instead.)

    Weigh that against the supposed 'benefits' of smoking? (I still don't see any )

    (As an aside, obviously I don't smoke so it's difficult at best for me to make the argument that we should allow it. )

    Now before we go any further with an analogy...I am not making the argument that we should apply this rational choice process to other recreational activities (I like my beer during my football games on the weekends in between studies. )
    I am not advocating smoking. I don't smoke either. I am advocating personal rights...including the right to cause yourself illness. It's your choice.

    How much money does our government spend fighting the use of marijuana? Billions (no I didn't look it up, feel free to do so and correct me). How many people are we paying to keep in prison simply becuase they possessed marijuana? Couldn't all that money be used for a much better cause?
    "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
    - Albert Einstein
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by santa
    No one is saying it's health food. Yes, it's not good for your body. Neither are about 1,000 other things. Probably about 1/2 of what you can buy in a grocery store would have a similar list of bad things that it can do to your body on the health side.

    If you want government to take on the nanny role, then they should ban:

    Tobacco
    Alchohol
    Big Macs
    Anything with Palm Oil in it
    Maybe even the internal cumbustion engine.

    (as an aside, from what little I remember when I read about this, Marijuana is not "physically" addictive. It can be "psychologically" adictive. That's can be true of a lot of things, both consumables and activities. Alchohol and tobacco are "physically" addictive.)
    This is a big part of what I am trying to say...guess I'm not so eloquent these days
    "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
    - Albert Einstein
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by santa
    No!!!

    The question should be: Is there an overriding reason for government to be involved in a personal decision.

    Cigarettes, Alchohol, Fatty food, Skydiving, Mountain climbing ....

    All things that put you personally at risk. It's not the US Government's business. It's your business.

    Prohibition w/o an overriding societal reason just leads to lack of respect for laws.
    EXACTLY!!!!! Santa for president?
    "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
    - Albert Einstein
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by ExtraOrdinaryJo
    Now...more devil's advocate. Should we ban drinking alcohol in public? The potential effects of public intoxication are far worse, and more easily measureable. Second-hand smoke may kill over time, but drunk drivers kill in real-time. By your argument, alcohol should be entirely banned, right? Yes, i am aware that that has been tried in the past....
    Everywhere I've lived, public intoxication is a misdemeanor crime. Granted I've lived in the liberal northeast (NYC, MA) and in the Bible Belt (Atlanta), but I thought that was the rule everywhere.....
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by ExtraOrdinaryJo
    I am not advocating smoking. I don't smoke either. I am advocating personal rights...including the right to cause yourself illness. It's your choice.

    How much money does our government spend fighting the use of marijuana? Billions (no I didn't look it up, feel free to do so and correct me). How many people are we paying to keep in prison simply becuase they possessed marijuana? Couldn't all that money be used for a much better cause?
    Hey! You are mixing up two different things. I am not saying people shouldn't smoke marijuana under my argument...they should not smoke cigarettes. Arguably Oregonians can attest (and some Californians) to the medicinal benefits of marijuana.

    I see no benefits to smoking just cigarettes. Ban them!
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    the supposed 'benefits' of smoking? (I still don't see any )
    I'm not a habitual smoker, but if there weren't any benefits to smoking, no one would do it! I can name a few benefits:

    1) Gives you a nice buzz (if you're an occasional smoker, not a 2 pack a day smoker)
    2) Cigars go nicely with scotch/bourbon/whiskey, port, brandy, etc.
    3) Help me relax when I'm unusually stressed.

    See, it's not all bad. OK, so the lung cancer thing, but everything will kill ya.

  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by nehle
    I'm not a habitual smoker, but if there weren't any benefits to smoking, no one would do it!
    Arguably people did it under peer pressure (still do) and then became strongly addicted to it. I see people who do and even know they KNOW it will KILL them, they do it regardless of the risks (that's evidence of a pretty strong addiction.)

    Quote Originally Posted by nehle
    I can name a few benefits:

    1) Gives you a nice buzz (if you're an occasional smoker, not a 2 pack a day smoker)
    Ok maybe.
    Quote Originally Posted by nehle
    2) Cigars go nicely with scotch/bourbon/whiskey, port, brandy, etc.
    Arguably cigars aren't smoking (at least the health effects are considerably less.)
    Quote Originally Posted by nehle
    3) Help me relax when I'm unusually stressed.
    Ok, you got me. But it not like there are 100 other things you could do to 'get a buzz' or help you 'relax' (like physical exercise). To each his own...I just like the debate.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  13. #33  
    And to add: I think the REAL reason (and everyone already knows this) why cigarettes are not banned is because of the HUGE monetary profits for businesses and various states who depend upon that as a significant part of their economy.

    Until you can give the states a viable alternative, its difficult for them to do anything about it.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    And to add: I think the REAL reason (and everyone already knows this) why cigarettes are not banned is because of the HUGE monetary profits for businesses and various states who depend upon that as a significant part of their economy.

    Until you can give the states a viable alternative, its difficult for them to do anything about it.
    It has nothing to do with being a "significant" part of a states economy. It's all about the tax revenue cigarettes generate
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by nehle
    Everywhere I've lived, public intoxication is a misdemeanor crime. Granted I've lived in the liberal northeast (NYC, MA) and in the Bible Belt (Atlanta), but I thought that was the rule everywhere.....
    Public intoxication is not the same as drinking in public. I menat...should we not be able to drink ANY alcohol in public?
    "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
    - Albert Einstein
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Hey! You are mixing up two different things. I am not saying people shouldn't smoke marijuana under my argument...they should not smoke cigarettes. Arguably Oregonians can attest (and some Californians) to the medicinal benefits of marijuana.

    I see no benefits to smoking just cigarettes. Ban them!
    OK. I am saying that just because YOU do not see any benefits to cigarettes doesn't mean they need to be banned. I definitely think they should be banned IN PUBLIC, however. And you should be allowed to run someone off the road when they flick their nasty butts out the window at your new car!!!
    "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
    - Albert Einstein
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    It has nothing to do with being a "significant" part of a states economy. It's all about the tax revenue cigarettes generate
    Yeah, that stinks (pun intended)

    It's the same reason there will never be driver education reform in this country...too much revenue generated from traffic violations. Look at Germany...much better drivers, less restrictive driving laws...MUCH lower rate of accidents, etc.
    "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
    - Albert Einstein
  18. santas's Avatar
    Posts
    624 Posts
    Global Posts
    641 Global Posts
    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by ExtraOrdinaryJo
    EXACTLY!!!!! Santa for president?
    Sorry. I couldn't get elected. I HAVE inhaled!
    Less than 400 posts to get my own little treo icon!
  19. santas's Avatar
    Posts
    624 Posts
    Global Posts
    641 Global Posts
    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Studies show that approximately 6 to 11 percent of fatal accident victims test positive for THC.
    Yes, this is ne of the many reasons to legalize:

    1) make driving under the influence illegal

    2) standardize quality so there's no "surprises" in what you're smoking

    3) get a little tax revenue!
    Less than 400 posts to get my own little treo icon!
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by ExtraOrdinaryJo
    OK. I am saying that just because YOU do not see any benefits to cigarettes doesn't mean they need to be banned.
    That's not quite the argument I am making. I am saying that:

    1) if the standard is what was in the original post (If no benefit, then it should not be allowed.) and

    2) if you cannot prove a benefit

    (or as a substitute...if it exponentially creates more harm than good)

    Then the activity should not be allowed. I think nehle tried to give a couple of reasons why there are benefits...Im not totally convinced that those were benefits...either way though, the standard should not be my subjective moral compass. (although I don't think its that bad. )
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions