Two published studies that say cannabis has a measurable negative impact on cognitive ability. Now imagine that these are aircraft mechanics, nurses, air traffic controllers, cops, firefighters, , and tell me that pot smoking has no societal impact and only affects the individuals. Or do you not believe in published studies...
No I don't, because I have personal experience which directly contradicts said "studies." I'm an all day long, every day type of pot smoker--and I'm far more intelligent than 95%+ of the population, including you. I've only gotten smarter and more creative since I started smoking. It was one of the best decisions I ever made, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is opening my eyes to how much propaganda I had been raised up with and believed.
throat and lung cancer is from smoking period not from nicotine.
Bullshit. Google for the study done by Dr Donald Tashkin of UCLA. His group studied pot smoking and tobacco smoking over a long term (20 years) study. They started out believing what you just said. But over the course of the study, they found that tobacco smokers had a greatly increased chance of lung cancer, etc, but marijuana smoking greatly reduced this chance, and even slightly reduced the chance in folks who smoked marijuana.
This is because THC is a bronchodilator, not a constrictor like nicotine is. And the marijuana plant contains far fewer toxins than tobacco.
but every adult I have met who smoked pot back in the 60's and 70's are not what I call intelligent or well off anymore.
Like Willie Nelson, for instance?
Or Jack Herer?
Or Willie Nelson?
Could it be that the people you know simply weren't that bright or motivated to begin with?
There are different types of cannabis. THC is not the only active ingredient; there are also cannabinoids and terpenoids, present in varying quantities depending on strain, which have various effects. There are certain types of pot that will leave you stoned off your ass on the couch for hours, not wanting to do anything but walk to the cabinet and grab some potato chips, and there are other types that will have you loving life as you run around digging ditches or shoveling snow.
All bullshit. For every one of those studies I can show you why it's flawed or why it can't be trusted because it is a GOVERNMENT FUNDED STUDY. The government doesn't fund ANYONE to study pot unless they intend to show it causes harmful effects.
Physical dependence is bullshit. Nobody (except quite possibly a TINY PERCENTAGE of users) develops physical dependence to marijuana.
In regards to psychosis, a study in a British journal recently found that is a flawed assertion.
In regards to emphysema, Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA studied marijuana and tobacco smokers for over 20 years, and found that smoking marijuana slightly REDUCED chances of developing lung cancer or emphysema.
Got any more pearls of wisdom you'd like to share with us ignorant pot smokers?
You're an idiot. I'm an every day, all day long type of smoker. The other day I ran out of pot. I'm kinda broke for the next few weeks (college student), and have other obligations, so can't buy a bag. Oh well. Not even the first hint of "jonesin" for a smoke. Not even the first hint of feeling bad or withdrawing or feeling "addicted" in any way. And you don't think I know what that's like? I used to smoke cigarettes. When I quit, I felt like shit for weeks, and thoughts constantly ran through my head of wanting to go buy a pack of smokes.
So in conclusion, you're ignorant, and a loud mouth, which equals = a dumb ass.
Except in this case, we're talking about marijuana, not crystal drain cleaner. Cannabis is a COMPLETELY HARMLESS substance that has never killed or hurt anyone. It's also an incredibly useful plant, which has been used by humanity for tens of thousands of years, and has a wide number of uses in industry.
Yeah I know, such things happen all the time in the US. Why, over 300 people were seriously injured or killed in road rage accidents last year. I'm sure that unpremeditated, heat of the moment shootings are the MOST common cause of firearm deaths, rather than other much less common causes, such as criminals purposely committing crimes. I think we should definitely ban firearms and trample on the rights of millions so that these folks will have a slightly more difficult time accomplishing their goals.
Which demonstrates very well the falsity of your assumption that other weapons will be substituted if guns are less available.
LOL, no it doesn't. The only thing it demonstrates is that the murder rate is lower in the UK. There's about a thousand different reasons that could be, any number of which are far more plausible than your unfounded assertion that's it due to handgun ownership.
For instance, the US is far more ethnically diverse than the UK. Interesting that the highest rates of homicide are not in the US, but in Africa, and in South America. Guess which ethnic groups comprise a large percentage of our population? And guess which ethnic groups are disproportionately responsible for violent crime in our country? And guess which ethnic groups are most prevalent in areas (big cities, such as Detroit, Atlanta, DC, etc) where violent crime is high?
I can't imagine any realistic scenario where would-be burglar/thief/assassin/rapist is likely to get into a situation where their intended victim has a gun trained on *them*.
I dunno, the Fort Hood attack, just to name the first thing that immediately popped into my head?
Japan has a very low homicide rate and strict gun control laws, where the USA has relatively lax gun control laws, and a much higher homicide rate, however, the homicide rate among Japanese Americans is comparable to the homicide rate of Japan, which suggests that culture has a great deal more to do with homicide than gun control.
DING DING DING--we have a winner. THANK YOU.
I'd argue it goes beyond culture--it's genetics.
And guess which country is amongst the most genetically and culturally diverse on the planet?
And which ethnic groups compromise large percentages of this country's population?
Hint: look at which countries/regions have the highest murder rates. Which ethnic groups, with genetic/cultural origins in regions on this list, are widespread in our country?
There is no sane reason why anyone would need to live with a gun.
Actually there are quite a number of sane reasons; just because you declare them to be "insane" does not change the rationale or logic.
Thankfully however, our founders saw these needs and planned for them. And even more thankfully, we live in a country where our basic RIGHTS are not based upon "need."
Guns are #1 because guns are lethal and available. Ban them, and people will use other weapons. And they'll still use guns too, just not as frequently. AND you'll be trampling on the rights of millions. Good luck with that.
Reading that fast aloud is the time it takes to fire six rounds into a human being, easily at a range of ten meters. There is no other tool that does that, fits in a pocket, and has millimetre accuracy at that range.
And yet, the lady who was shot point blank in the back of the head survived. 12 out of 18 of the victims survived their gunshot wounds. My own father was accidently shot with a rifle when he was a kid and survived.
Gunshot wounds aren't exactly a guaranteed death sentence either. A person who is competent with a knife, and uses a sufficiently large knife, can be extremely deadly. There's dozens of other types of weapons that can be used to kill people, or to kill scores of people. A homemade car bomb, for instance. Or do you think banning cars, diesel fuel, and fertilizer is the solution?
I hear this bullshit all the time from Americans trying to justify widespread gun ownership and it's real crap. Guns don't make killing easier 'in some ways' - guns make killing easier period. It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them, and it's accurate
Really? What about bows, and their cousin the crossbow? Those aren't deadly and accurate over long range?
We Americans don't have to "justify" a God damn thing. Gun ownership is a right that many of us will defend to the death. Just TRY and take our guns away and see what happens.
It's quite hard to stab 20 people to death before you get stopped, even if there are no guns at the scene.
Sure, they'll just be restricted to the criminals who really want them. And all of the law abiding citizens will lose one of their God given rights. Great tradeoff.
It's quite hard to stab 20 people to death before you get stopped, even if there are no guns at the scene.
And it's not at all hard to load up a car full of fertilizer and diesel fuel, a homemade detonator and cell phone, and blow the entire building to shreds.
If you ban guns, people will just other, sometimes much more effective and deadly, means to kill each other. You can't legislate violence out of existence, and in trying to do so you're hurting people's basic freedoms.
Yeah, we see how well those F16s, Apaches, and M1 Abrams are doing against camel jockeys and goat herders with rusty AK47s and homemade bombs in Afghanistan.
If you want to protect your country from the government join the army... it is made up of normal citizens who are just as patriotic as anyone else, and who want the best for their country.
Really? Then why is it that so many people aspire to become doctors and lawyers, and push their kids towards these careers?
Or, to put it another way--are doctors and lawyers hated because most of society feels that way, or because of jealousy/envy amongst some subset of the population?
Just talking properly will probably get the occasional "what are you, a homo?!" thrown at you.
Only if you are a socially incompetent dweeb. If you're a "good ole boy", well adjusted, reasonably physically fit, and well groomed, people will respect and admire you.
Slashdot Mirror
You sound like an idiot
Two published studies that say cannabis has a measurable negative impact on cognitive ability. Now imagine that these are aircraft mechanics, nurses, air traffic controllers, cops, firefighters, , and tell me that pot smoking has no societal impact and only affects the individuals. Or do you not believe in published studies ...
No I don't, because I have personal experience which directly contradicts said "studies." I'm an all day long, every day type of pot smoker--and I'm far more intelligent than 95%+ of the population, including you. I've only gotten smarter and more creative since I started smoking. It was one of the best decisions I ever made, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is opening my eyes to how much propaganda I had been raised up with and believed.
Enjoy your life of ignorance. :)
throat and lung cancer is from smoking period not from nicotine.
Bullshit. Google for the study done by Dr Donald Tashkin of UCLA. His group studied pot smoking and tobacco smoking over a long term (20 years) study. They started out believing what you just said. But over the course of the study, they found that tobacco smokers had a greatly increased chance of lung cancer, etc, but marijuana smoking greatly reduced this chance, and even slightly reduced the chance in folks who smoked marijuana.
This is because THC is a bronchodilator, not a constrictor like nicotine is. And the marijuana plant contains far fewer toxins than tobacco.
but every adult I have met who smoked pot back in the 60's and 70's are not what I call intelligent or well off anymore.
Like Willie Nelson, for instance?
Or Jack Herer?
Or Willie Nelson?
Could it be that the people you know simply weren't that bright or motivated to begin with?
There are different types of cannabis. THC is not the only active ingredient; there are also cannabinoids and terpenoids, present in varying quantities depending on strain, which have various effects. There are certain types of pot that will leave you stoned off your ass on the couch for hours, not wanting to do anything but walk to the cabinet and grab some potato chips, and there are other types that will have you loving life as you run around digging ditches or shoveling snow.
All bullshit. For every one of those studies I can show you why it's flawed or why it can't be trusted because it is a GOVERNMENT FUNDED STUDY. The government doesn't fund ANYONE to study pot unless they intend to show it causes harmful effects.
Physical dependence is bullshit. Nobody (except quite possibly a TINY PERCENTAGE of users) develops physical dependence to marijuana.
In regards to psychosis, a study in a British journal recently found that is a flawed assertion.
In regards to emphysema, Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA studied marijuana and tobacco smokers for over 20 years, and found that smoking marijuana slightly REDUCED chances of developing lung cancer or emphysema.
Got any more pearls of wisdom you'd like to share with us ignorant pot smokers?
You're an idiot. I'm an every day, all day long type of smoker. The other day I ran out of pot. I'm kinda broke for the next few weeks (college student), and have other obligations, so can't buy a bag. Oh well. Not even the first hint of "jonesin" for a smoke. Not even the first hint of feeling bad or withdrawing or feeling "addicted" in any way. And you don't think I know what that's like? I used to smoke cigarettes. When I quit, I felt like shit for weeks, and thoughts constantly ran through my head of wanting to go buy a pack of smokes.
So in conclusion, you're ignorant, and a loud mouth, which equals = a dumb ass.
Except in this case, we're talking about marijuana, not crystal drain cleaner. Cannabis is a COMPLETELY HARMLESS substance that has never killed or hurt anyone. It's also an incredibly useful plant, which has been used by humanity for tens of thousands of years, and has a wide number of uses in industry.
Yeah I know, such things happen all the time in the US. Why, over 300 people were seriously injured or killed in road rage accidents last year. I'm sure that unpremeditated, heat of the moment shootings are the MOST common cause of firearm deaths, rather than other much less common causes, such as criminals purposely committing crimes. I think we should definitely ban firearms and trample on the rights of millions so that these folks will have a slightly more difficult time accomplishing their goals.
Which demonstrates very well the falsity of your assumption that other weapons will be substituted if guns are less available.
LOL, no it doesn't. The only thing it demonstrates is that the murder rate is lower in the UK. There's about a thousand different reasons that could be, any number of which are far more plausible than your unfounded assertion that's it due to handgun ownership.
For instance, the US is far more ethnically diverse than the UK. Interesting that the highest rates of homicide are not in the US, but in Africa, and in South America. Guess which ethnic groups comprise a large percentage of our population? And guess which ethnic groups are disproportionately responsible for violent crime in our country? And guess which ethnic groups are most prevalent in areas (big cities, such as Detroit, Atlanta, DC, etc) where violent crime is high?
I can't imagine any realistic scenario where would-be burglar/thief/assassin/rapist is likely to get into a situation where their intended victim has a gun trained on *them*.
I dunno, the Fort Hood attack, just to name the first thing that immediately popped into my head?
Japan has a very low homicide rate and strict gun control laws, where the USA has relatively lax gun control laws, and a much higher homicide rate, however, the homicide rate among Japanese Americans is comparable to the homicide rate of Japan, which suggests that culture has a great deal more to do with homicide than gun control.
DING DING DING--we have a winner. THANK YOU.
I'd argue it goes beyond culture--it's genetics.
And guess which country is amongst the most genetically and culturally diverse on the planet?
And which ethnic groups compromise large percentages of this country's population?
This wikipedia article might be enlightening to some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Hint: look at which countries/regions have the highest murder rates. Which ethnic groups, with genetic/cultural origins in regions on this list, are widespread in our country?
And do the rates of violent crime in our country, broken down by ethnic group, show any correlation with the above list? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
There is no sane reason why anyone would need to live with a gun.
Actually there are quite a number of sane reasons; just because you declare them to be "insane" does not change the rationale or logic.
Thankfully however, our founders saw these needs and planned for them. And even more thankfully, we live in a country where our basic RIGHTS are not based upon "need."
Handguns are the number one murder weapon by far, outnumbering all the other weapons added together.
Except in the UK, where it is knives. Oh, and guns (in this gun controlled police state) still account for 9 percent of murders.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/scourge-of-the-most-common-murder-weapon-478909.html
Guns are #1 because guns are lethal and available. Ban them, and people will use other weapons. And they'll still use guns too, just not as frequently. AND you'll be trampling on the rights of millions. Good luck with that.
Reading that fast aloud is the time it takes to fire six rounds into a human being, easily at a range of ten meters. There is no other tool that does that, fits in a pocket, and has millimetre accuracy at that range.
And yet, the lady who was shot point blank in the back of the head survived. 12 out of 18 of the victims survived their gunshot wounds. My own father was accidently shot with a rifle when he was a kid and survived.
Gunshot wounds aren't exactly a guaranteed death sentence either. A person who is competent with a knife, and uses a sufficiently large knife, can be extremely deadly. There's dozens of other types of weapons that can be used to kill people, or to kill scores of people. A homemade car bomb, for instance. Or do you think banning cars, diesel fuel, and fertilizer is the solution?
I hear this bullshit all the time from Americans trying to justify widespread gun ownership and it's real crap. Guns don't make killing easier 'in some ways' - guns make killing easier period. It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them, and it's accurate
Really? What about bows, and their cousin the crossbow? Those aren't deadly and accurate over long range?
We Americans don't have to "justify" a God damn thing. Gun ownership is a right that many of us will defend to the death. Just TRY and take our guns away and see what happens.
It's quite hard to stab 20 people to death before you get stopped, even if there are no guns at the scene.
Sure, they'll just be restricted to the criminals who really want them. And all of the law abiding citizens will lose one of their God given rights. Great tradeoff.
It's quite hard to stab 20 people to death before you get stopped, even if there are no guns at the scene.
And it's not at all hard to load up a car full of fertilizer and diesel fuel, a homemade detonator and cell phone, and blow the entire building to shreds.
If you ban guns, people will just other, sometimes much more effective and deadly, means to kill each other. You can't legislate violence out of existence, and in trying to do so you're hurting people's basic freedoms.
I've served with Canadians...you're not any better. Sorry.
Good. Then keep your nose out of our business.
I'm ashamed of being from a country that's one of the worlds biggest arms dealers.
Then move. We don't need you here.
Yeah, we see how well those F16s, Apaches, and M1 Abrams are doing against camel jockeys and goat herders with rusty AK47s and homemade bombs in Afghanistan.
If you want to protect your country from the government join the army... it is made up of normal citizens who are just as patriotic as anyone else, and who want the best for their country.
LMFAO @ your naivite.
Signed,
Former member of the U.S. armed forces
+1
Or better yet, get rid of a bunch of existing earmarks, and put that money towards hiring quality teachers instead. But that'll never happen.
Really? Then why is it that so many people aspire to become doctors and lawyers, and push their kids towards these careers?
Or, to put it another way--are doctors and lawyers hated because most of society feels that way, or because of jealousy/envy amongst some subset of the population?
Just talking properly will probably get the occasional "what are you, a homo?!" thrown at you.
Only if you are a socially incompetent dweeb. If you're a "good ole boy", well adjusted, reasonably physically fit, and well groomed, people will respect and admire you.