Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/23/06 02:55 AM, MindControlFun wrote: Personally, I think it's more of a matter of time.

I used to think that too ..10 years ago.
Then i realized that a good deal of people were thinking that 20 years ago.
Then i realized that a heap of people were thinking that 30 years ago.
Then i realized that a heck of a LOTTA people thought like that 40 years ago.

(are you seeing a pattern yet?)

At 11/23/06 01:08 AM, fasdit wrote: I personally don't care if people want to smoke weed, what worries me is people driving while high. The last thing I need is some certified dumbass crashing into me because he's high as a kite.

that is why regulations would have to be put in place to prevent this as was done for drunk driving. for some reason most anti-marijuana advocates think that a legalisation means that you can smoke where ever you want and do whatever you please afterwords.

I know that drugs affect people differently and some people claim to be able to drive just as good while high. But I don't buy this bullshit that weed is not going to affect everyone's driving ability.

i've driven once while high. it didn't affect my driving but i'll admit it was stupid and isn't something someone should do even if they believe it doesn't affect their driving (though i had waited a while after smoking before i drove but still not a good idea).

At 11/23/06 02:55 AM, MindControlFun wrote: Has anyone seen the new |a|n|t|i|d|r|u|g| commercials? The one where he's talking about how he smoked pot and all he did was sit on a couch, and it was very safe.

The battle is already lost if they've reduced their campaign to saying, essentially, "oh well... we know it's not really bad for you, but it would still be nice if you didnt."

Personally, I think it's more of a matter of time.

The best part is that it's not even true. The last time I was high I made a birthday card for a friend and fixed a computer for my parents.

Cannabis should be legalized but it should come with some of the same laws as alchol. You shouldn't be able to drive when your high and you should have to be a certain age to buy it. Then i think i would be no worse than beer.

Look, we have many drugs like cannabis that are not legal. In my opinion legalize these damn things.

1) We have a huge number using these drugs. Yes, this will increase users if we legalize, but this is a new number we can manage.

2)Police have drug crimes OFF THE MAP. No more shooting, laundering, or other crimes over drugs except for a very small few.

3)The government can control the market and make this much better for the people and the country. Taxes would be added, but the price would make it much easier to get.

4)No un-pure drug problems! People lace drugs with all sorts of things, and cause even more health problems than the drugs give! Anyone selling unpure drugs can still be dealt with!

5)We can still add an age restriction to these drugs!

The fact is that anyone who says that weed should not be legal has not considered the very legitimate medical use. As much as I love weed, I don't wholeheartedly support legalization. I support decriminalization for the following reasons:

1. Over 50% of Doctors believe that Medical Cannabis should be legalized. This means that most educated health professionals believe that the benefits of medical marijuana outweigh the cons. I personally trust the opinion of doctors about a drug more than the government's opinion, its just common sense! Cocaine is legal for and used as a dental anesthetic, and derivatives of poppy (which is the main ingredient in heroin) are the basis of the painkiller. However, all forms of marijuana are illegal. I think it's just common sense to trust a healthcare professional on drug issues more than a politician.

2. Ridiculous marijuana laws. Did you know that a person convicted of a drug-related offence IS INELIGIBLE TO RECIEVE FINANCIAL AID FOR COLLEGE? Basically, if you are caught smoking marijuana, no matter what your grades are, you are no longer allowed to recieve any financial aid. And do NOT use the argument "well if they're on drugs, they could hurt people, so they shouldn't be allowed in school." This is ridiculous. If you're caught being drunk in school, you get in trouble, and alcohol is one of the most violence-inducing drugs out there.

I do not favor the legalization of pot because I want to smoke it. I favor it because it's just common sense.

At 11/24/06 09:11 AM, a-guy-with-no-life wrote: 4)No un-pure drug problems! People lace drugs with all sorts of things, and cause even more health problems than the drugs give! Anyone selling unpure drugs can still be dealt with!

only idiots lace weed. in order to lace weed, you'd be spending more money than what you would be getting when you sell the weed.

At 11/24/06 02:10 PM, Shootem-up wrote:

At 11/24/06 09:11 AM, a-guy-with-no-life wrote: 4)No un-pure drug problems! People lace drugs with all sorts of things, and cause even more health problems than the drugs give! Anyone selling unpure drugs can still be dealt with!

only idiots lace weed. in order to lace weed, you'd be spending more money than what you would be getting when you sell the weed.

But it can also be done in small amounts and can get customers hooked on a product.

At 11/24/06 02:10 PM, Shootem-up wrote:

only idiots lace weed. in order to lace weed, you'd be spending more money than what you would be getting when you sell the weed.

I am not a hunderd % sure what "lace" means, but I am guessing mixing it up with crap. like they do with coke alot these days. if this is correct then:

How the fuck would lacing weed not deliver more profit?? I know enough people who do this. they just through in some grass (real grass) this really doesnt cost them a thing

At 11/25/06 07:24 PM, Tomsan wrote: I am not a hunderd % sure what "lace" means, but I am guessing mixing it up with crap. like they do with coke alot these days. if this is correct then:

How the fuck would lacing weed not deliver more profit?? I know enough people who do this. they just through in some grass (real grass) this really doesnt cost them a thing

Lace means you mix it with another drug. Mixing it with something inert to make more money is called cutting.

Also, anybody who doesn't realize they're getting FUCKING GRASS along with their weed is an idiot.

At 11/25/06 07:49 PM, Elfer wrote: Also, anybody who doesn't realize they're getting FUCKING GRASS along with their weed is an idiot.

damn, now everything is starting to make sense. *lowers head in shame*

At 11/23/06 01:08 AM, fasdit wrote: I know that drugs affect people differently and some people claim to be able to drive just as good while high. But I don't buy this bullshit that weed is not going to affect everyone's driving ability.

Well, the nice thing about weed is that unlike alcohol, you will reach a point where the idea of driving a car is just way too terrifying for you to do it.

At 11/26/06 04:16 PM, Mercator wrote: Cigarettes Vs. Weed

Smokers of cigarettes smoke anywhere from 1-3 packs DAILY. Each pack contains somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 cigarettes

That's a chain-smoker. I'd say the average smoker smokes 10 cigarettes to a pack and a half a day, depending.

Weed smokers smoke from 1-3 joints DAILY

That depends on the weed smoker. Most don't smoke daily.

and no, the THC content in marijuana is not 10 times the amount in one cigarette.

Right. There is no THC in a cigarette.

More lung cancer patients test negative of marijuana than cigarettes.

Right.

www.usmjparty.com

At 11/16/06 12:57 AM, packow wrote: I am really amazed that there are some people who are against the legalization of cannabis.

Here are some links that I think should be visited:

www.norml.org = legalization advocates. A VERY informative article:

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5515# alleg1

Marijuana legalization topic here k

IMO cannabis should be legal for medical purposes, not others.

Health is entirely irrelevent. The idea of protecting people from themselves is ridiculous and fascist.

People have the right to do with themselves as they please. If harm is done to no other than they are causing no harm.

And I'm tired of hearing this "problems with the economy" crap. The idea of saccrificing the rights of the individual for the good of the colony is Ant Farm bullshit.

And as I can see, hypocrisy is rampant with the "anti-drug" class. Oh yeah, cigarettes and weed are the Devil, but alcohol is just fine. Idiots.

At 11/26/06 05:32 PM, Mercator wrote:

At 11/26/06 05:24 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 11/26/06 04:16 PM, Mercator wrote: Cigarettes Vs. Weed

Smokers of cigarettes smoke anywhere from 1-3 packs DAILY. Each pack contains somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 cigarettes

That's a chain-smoker. I'd say the average smoker smokes 10 cigarettes to a pack and a half a day, depending.

Have you ever bought cigarettes? If so, you would know that there are indeed more then 10 cigarettes in a pack. Also, a chain smoker will exceed 3 packs a day and smoke almost 5 packs a day.

I wasn't saying that there are 10 cigarettes to a pack, I was saying that not every cigarette smoker smokes a pack a day. Half a pack to a pack and a half is what I was saying.

Right. There is no THC in a cigarette.

Wrong, there is THC in cigarettes.

THC is the active ingrediant in the cannabis plant. As far as I know, it is not found in any other plant. And I don't think the tobacco companies put cannabis in their cigarettes.

At 11/27/06 12:06 AM, Mercator wrote: Communism>Fascism

Ideal communism would involve everyone getting even amounts of marijuana and nobody getting over.

The thing is that ideal Communism doesn't work in a large population, and Fascism does (to an extent). Both are equally unnattractive in my eyes though, I couldn't ever pick one over the other.

At 11/26/06 06:00 PM, Kamisorix wrote:

At 11/16/06 12:57 AM, packow wrote: I am really amazed that there are some people who are against the legalization of cannabis.

Here are some links that I think should be visited:

www.norml.org = legalization advocates. A VERY informative article:

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5515# alleg1

Marijuana legalization topic here k

IMO cannabis should be legal for medical purposes, not others.

I think it should be decriminalized. The penalties are absolute bullshit.

If you're caught, you lose all College financial aid. Is it just me, or does that sound like a government attempt to keep poor people out of college?

What the fuck does smoking a joint have to do with financial aid? This law is ridiculous. You can't lose financial aid for drinking underage, and that actually makes people violent in many cases.

At 11/27/06 05:32 PM, packow wrote: If you're caught, you lose all College financial aid. Is it just me, or does that sound like a government attempt to keep poor people out of college?

Rich drop-outs use marijuana more. It's targeted at those kids and their parents, because they're a waste of money (the kids).

At 11/27/06 10:53 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 11/27/06 05:32 PM, packow wrote: If you're caught, you lose all College financial aid. Is it just me, or does that sound like a government attempt to keep poor people out of college?

Rich drop-outs use marijuana more. It's targeted at those kids and their parents, because they're a waste of money (the kids).

So you believe that an appropriate punishment for smoking a naturally occuring plant that has never killed anyone-

-is total loss of every oppurtunity of higher education?

So a law that takes away financial aid is directed at people who the law wouldn't even effect, while ruining lives literally?

At 11/27/06 05:32 PM, packow wrote: If you're caught, you lose all College financial aid. Is it just me, or does that sound like a government attempt to keep poor people out of college?

Nope, it's the oil and lumber companies again.

LUMBER CARTEL LUMBER CARTEL.

At 11/28/06 01:55 AM, Mercator wrote:

NaOH for those of you who do not know, is a caustic chemical that is solid at room temperature and hazardous to your health

The only way there could actually be THC in cigarettes would be if there was cannabis put into the cigarettes. 4% THC would get the smoker pretty high.

And Sodium Hydroxide is drain cleaner.

It is known as Sodium Hydroxide. Na (sodium) OH (Hydroxide)

At 11/26/06 05:32 PM, Mercator wrote:

Have you ever bought cigarettes? If so, you would know that there are indeed more then 10 cigarettes in a pack. Also, a chain smoker will exceed 3 packs a day and smoke almost 5 packs a day.

There is either 20 or 25 cigarettes in a pack. I know this because I smoke.

Wrong, there is THC in cigarettes.

YOU are wrong. There is no THC in cigarettes, if there were then they would be illegal. THC is only found in cannabis and in very, very, very small quantities in only a few other plants such a small amount in fact, that smoking a joing the size of a baseball bat would be necessary to get high.

There is NO THC in cigarettes.

(this is about a week late, but I can't stand such blatant stupidity)

THC is an insecticide produced by Cannibis and other related plant species. While it is lethal to insects, the dosage in marijuana isn't high enough to kill a human, or anything much larger than a beatle, really. The only way to have this happen is to concentrate the THC and inject it into one's body -- which has been done, and resulted in the death of one woman (the only death whose immediate cause was related to marijuana, I might add).

The fact is that marijuana isn't nearly as harmful as the Ad Council and all these other government agencies make it out to be. There are numerous beneficial effects from smoking marijuana, and relatively few negative effects -- most of which can result from use of currently legal substances anyway. So, having marijuana illegalized is illogical, unless you want to ban everything else that causes lung cancer too -- tobacco, fossil fuels, etc. etc.

Marijuana could be a major source of income for the government as well. They could put a tax on marijuana similar in proportion to that on cigarettes, and make a huge profit from it. Also, by legalizing it, there would no longer be the overcrowding in US prison systems from possession charges, resulting in less taxes elsewhere.

Every chemical known to man and many many others can be found in cigarettes.

Hey man I'm not condoning or supporting drug use but I think they should legalize it here in the States. I can't seem to find the article but if I'm not mistaken the people who used marijuana in Europe after they legalized it actually decreased. my "friend" uses pot out of necessity because he has add and he refuses to take riddlin.

At 12/4/06 05:18 PM, badreligion7483 wrote: Hey man I'm not condoning or supporting drug use but I think they should legalize it here in the States. I can't seem to find the article but if I'm not mistaken the people who used marijuana in Europe after they legalized it actually decreased. my "friend" uses pot out of necessity because he has add and he refuses to take riddlin.

*Ritalin

Ritalin is a perfectly safe and very effective drug. Cannabis has many excellent medicinal uses, but treating ADD is definitely NOT one of them. It's kind of like treating horniness with viagra.

Using cannabis to treat ADD can NOT be good for your "friend's" grades.

At 12/5/06 08:07 PM, Mercator wrote:

At 12/4/06 08:23 PM, packow wrote:

At 12/4/06 05:18 PM, badreligion7483 wrote:

*Ritalin

Ritalin is a perfectly safe and very effective drug. Cannabis has many excellent medicinal uses, but treating ADD is definitely NOT one of them. It's kind of like treating horniness with viagra.

Have you ever used Ritalin?? It has really bad side effects. When you come off of it, you usually are a SEVERE ass to everyone around you. Using Ritalin is like using a wrecking ball to get your locked front door open.

I'm perscribed, and Ritalin is a seriously effective concentration aid. Irritability can be a side effect, but it's really a result of the comedown, which, all things considered, is very mild for a stimulant drug. I usually get a bit depressed.

Using cannabis to treat ADD can NOT be good for your "friend's" grades.

Yes. I agree. cannabis tends to make people lose it when it comes to their grades. They just stop caring.

At 12/5/06 11:15 PM, Mercator wrote: Adderall is a much better drug for ADD/ADHD. Ritalin is a thing of the past. Yes, Adderall is an amphetamine, but so what? Its side effects are way less than those of Ritalin, and children who take Adderall report better concentration and organization than those who take Ritalin
(double-blind experiment BTW)

The whole idea of selling an amphetamine to children just seems so... wrong? Not only is it a very addictive drug (Adderall), but I've seen many incidents where it has been sold to kids at schools for recreational use. I'm not saying that I don't believe it should be used when it's really needed, as I don't doubt that there are times it's needed, in fact I know several people who DEFINATELY need it, but I know more that probably don't, and I don't think it should be prescribed for every single child who has a hard time paying attention sometimes. It's a hard drug, doctors shouldn't prescribe it so liberally.

At 12/6/06 12:44 AM, Mercator wrote:

At 12/5/06 11:40 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 12/5/06 11:15 PM, Mercator wrote: Adderall is a much better drug for ADD/ADHD. Ritalin is a thing of the past. Yes, Adderall is an amphetamine, but so what? Its side effects are way less than those of Ritalin, and children who take Adderall report better concentration and organization than those who take Ritalin
(double-blind experiment BTW)

Medication effects differ by the person. Some people's bodies just respond better to different medications than other. I tried adderall but it didn't do nearly as much for me as Ritalin. My mother, on the other hand, responds better to adderall. The reason competition in the drugs industry exists is practically because people just respond differently to different medications.

And there's nothing "wrong" with perscribing amphetamines to children. If a doctor sees a medical condition for which a drug should be perscribed, the doctor should perscribe it.

Amphetamine is delivered in such small amounts in Adderall, MUCH less than in recreational doses. And it also does not cause addiction if used as directed.

At 12/6/06 05:35 PM, Mercator wrote:

At 12/6/06 04:17 PM, packow wrote:

At 12/6/06 12:44 AM, Mercator wrote:

At 12/5/06 11:40 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 12/5/06 11:15 PM, Mercator wrote: Adderall is a much better drug for ADD/ADHD. Ritalin is a thing of the past. Yes, Adderall is an amphetamine, but so what? Its side effects are way less than those of Ritalin, and children who take Adderall report better concentration and organization than those who take Ritalin
(double-blind experiment BTW)

Medication effects differ by the person. Some people's bodies just respond better to different medications than other. I tried adderall but it didn't do nearly as much for me as Ritalin. My mother, on the other hand, responds better to adderall. The reason competition in the drugs industry exists is practically because people just respond differently to different medications.

Did you know you were taking adderall?? Its human nature to experience the Bias effect...we do i all the time, regardless if you want to or not, and whether you realize you are doing it or not.

I knew the name of the medication, but at the time, I really didn't care what the hell I was taking. If anything I would have been biased against the Ritalin. But the ritalin just produced more of an effect at a lower dose.

You really can't argue with different effects of drugs on different people. It's simple medical fact.