pouët.net

My mind plays tricks on me (and I never smoked anything...).
I read SALIVA!

:)

too much of a good thing.. it can happen with weed, it can even happen with water. in that sense, it's harmless.

an example: a friend of mine became insane in the membrane from smoking about 3 joints every night of the week (it's not schizophrenia but more like delusions of grandeur and paranoia). still, i believe it's socially far less harmful than alcohol abuse. but it is a minor health (mental and physical) risk, especially when combined with tobacco.

xeron, i wonder if you'd say the same about alcohol if your wife had been training to become a social worker in my-husband-beat-me-houses instead.

i completely dig your point, but i can't imagine weed is any worse than beer, really - the consequences are just different, but not better or worse. banning one slightly dangerous, future-disrupting, family-breaking and health-care-tax-costing drug and not the other, seemingly at random, the decision based purely on some weird traditional value and a churchill quote is, in my opinion, quite idiotic.

Maali: Yes of course. And in that case weed smokers are paying for the consequences too. To some extent. Or maybe they're more than compensating for it. Either way it's surely a more economically sound approach in the short term than having everyone smoking anyway, under completely uncontrolled circumstances, with all the money going to organised crime.

The only "recreational drugs" I've touched in a long time are alcohol and nicotine, so I don't have any personal interest in legalised pot. But the circular reasoning annoys me endlessly - we treat users like victims because selling weed is a crime, and it's a crime to sell weed because there are victims. All the underlying questions are ignored, because the circle completes itself so neatly, and politics is after all retarded.

Another problem with weed is that it, in many cases, leads to hard drugs, due to the environment in which it's being sought out and purchased.

Beer doesn't do that. But maybe because it's not illegal?

skrebbel: I've seen a lot of lives ruined by alcohol. I've even seen an alcoholic replace booze with weed and subsequently (i like to think consequently) manage to piece his life back together, a little bit. I think he ended up back on the booze again though, and for all I know he's lying dead in a puddle of his own vomit now, but it's food for thought, anyway.

In many cases??? Facts?

And that's the point, where we get the conclusion.
Alcohol is not connected to illegal drugs for public.
If you said that alcohol is a illegal drug, it could lead users to harder drugs.
It's all about how your brain works, I don't want to spam now with plenty of scientific fact, if you want more info go to wikipedia and further if you really want to understand the problem, I don't want you to believe me, I want you to think for yourself and be rational, and not believe unconfirmed gossips.

@xeron: the number of broadband users has increased as well. It could have caused it too! You should ban DSL! Think if the children! Or are you some kind of child-hating _monster_?!

yeah ok, because thats the same.

A good rule of thumb is to not touch the stuff if you have a predisposition to mental episodes, just like you shouldn't gamble if you've got an addictive personality.

I suspect most people don't find out about that predisposition to mental episodes until they've smoked a fair bit. Which is what happened to a couple of my old friends.. one ended up a schizophrenic, the other... well, he was kind of permanently seriously chilled out and in a good mood, which isn't that bad an outcome. Except that he turned into a total psycho nutcase if he drank any alcohol.

Sounds like a setup for a sitcom.

there's a demo specially made for you: http://pouet.net/prod.php?which=366

Come on - you sound like the lawyers of the tobacco industry: "Where's the scientific proof that smoking can lead to lung cancer?".

I have a friend, who's tried it all - he's still pretty sane, but I fear for his experiments in the long run. And yes, it started with cannabis and yes, he's smart about it and lets other people buy the drugs for him, but there are people out there who are NOT being so smart about it - weaker minds, you might say. They are more likely to get into trouble, because they lack the ability to control certain parts of their brains. It's these people who are referred to as "victims" and perhaps rightfully so, although I'm sure Dr. Doom could find an argument or 10 that proves me wrong, or at least questions my argument.

I don't have any solution - and perhaps I just go too much with the flow here, believing the "grapevine" that tells me that cannabis is bad.

I guess I need proof that it is NOT addictive and that one CAN control it, if it were to be legalized.

The problem is that people who actually DO have a predisposition to mental episodes, are either not in know about that fact, or too far out to care about it. Those are the "victims" and they need protection. And if protection means a general ban, then fine by me. You just can't select certain people and tell them THEY can't use cannabis, when everyone else can. It's either legal for all or for none.

That's not an illness - that's just being british. ;)

Of course I meant "not in THE know"...

http://drbenkim.com/ten-most-dangerous-drugs.html

Please note the position of alcohol on that list.

I suppose the weaker minds have the same kind of problem controlling alcohol as they have controlling cannabis - or any other influentual substance, for that matter...

'nuff said? ;)