/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1150918
Because it turns out, you're actually acting like an annoying proselytizing asshole when you 'let them know' these things.

People may or may not fully understand the risks involved in taking drugs, but that's up to them, they don't need a jackass like you trying to shove it down their throats every time the subject matter comes up.

I like the OP <3

I'm sick of drug users

>The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.

CARL. MOTHERFUCKING. SAGAN.

>>1151305
Well that makes at least 2 retarded comments by the man

>>1150954
>implying the non drug users are the ones shoving their views down other peoples throats

lol, 0/10

>>1151315

qft

>implying you aren't a troll

>>1150918
>troll implies drinking a coke doesn't wreak havok on your body's systems. We haven't evolved the ability to handle that amount of sugar at once, ask your liver.

>>1151315
wut was the first one?

>>1151305
>a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.
there's somebody taking their own experience and ignorantly attributing it to others

I've smoked pot on several occasions, it makes me feel super retarded. My thoughts get slower and cloudy, and I can't think straight, so I stopped doing it.

>>1150918
>suggesting to eat 3.5 grams of mj in a single serving

you are going to be SO stoned you will forget to breathe

>>1151371
try it a few more times, everyone gets the cloudiness the first ~10 times. Just like beer gets better, pot gets better.

>>1151371
Ditto. I tried because some people told me that they wrote better essays and other shit when stoned. It only made me unable to focus and just spew random thoughts. So I dropped the whole thing after a few tries, and still performed better than the stoners.

>>1151320
>implying they aren't

>>1150954
pretty defensive there bro.

>>1151370
I won't say it but it plagued /sci/ for months

>>1150954

See what I was talking about?

>>1151371
I tried it in college, couldn't even do homework for an entire day. I just felt like I was in a fog

>>1150918
>you're a pussy who can't enjoy life as it is
>have to get intoxicated
>have to watch tv
>you have to watch movies
>in 3D
>have to eat candy

taking recreational drugs is just another form of indulgence which is totally appropriate if you can control yourself

>>1151412
>accusations
>defense

LOL why so defensive?

Why anti-drug activists get all defensive about other people taking drugs? If you question them why they so mad, knowing it's none of their business, they get (more) mad.

Marijuana is not bad for you when ingested or steamed. Fact. Also, you're a bitch who can't enjoy life if others are having fun and have to ruin it for other people to feel something. Don't shove me your anti-drug propaganda (lies in almost all situations) and just accept you're a failure. Makes it easier for both of us.

Funny thing is, I've never tried weed or any drug besides my prescription Adderall (and alcohol). I have no intention to. But to say that "derp drugs are bad herp" without giving reason why is absolutely retarded. Marijuana is infinitely less harmful than alcohol, yet people want the former to remain illegal while the latter still gives hundreds of thousands every year.

Besides, what a person does in his own home is no business of yours. Not only that, many people that casually use weed just sit around and play video games or whatever, which is EXACTLY what they would be doing WITHOUT the weed anyways!

>>1151442

Like I said in the other thread
Civilizations that use weed: hippies and Mexico
Civilizations that use alcohol: vikings

Weed 0
Alcohol 1

ITT: Bunch of nerds with no access to drugs bitch about how bad drugs are.

>anti-drug propaganda (lies in almost all situations)
>Marijuana is infinitely less harmful than alcohol

Nice reality you live in there

>>1151447
Pssssh who do you think made heroin, ecstasy, lsd, cocaine in the first place?

>>1151450

/thread

and thats how we do it at /sci/

>>1151454
seconded

>>1151446
Marijuana use has been prevalent in many societies since B.C.E.

>>1151448
Nice rebuttal you have there.

Marijuana is essentially impossible to overdose with. It would take over 4000 joints smoked in 10 minutes to overdose on it, impossible for a human to do, when it takes only 9-15 times the amount of alcohol it takes to get drunk to overdose from it.

Also, marijuana use slows tumor growth IMMENSELY.

It's not physically addicting, either.

That's just for the drug aspects. Hemp is way cheaper to use for making paper, clothing, and rope out of, and hemp rope is stronger than normal rope.

>>1151471
Lame societies

>>1151442
>>implying fun = being stoned

>>1151473
1) only certain tumors
2) no you would die of suffocation long before that, the fact that you believe that shows your incredible stupidity
3) no it isn't any cheaper than the synthetics we have now, that argument stopped being relevant about 30 years ago

>>1151446
Civilizations that used weed:
Egypt
China
India

>>1151488
Extinct
Lame
Lamer

>>1151483
yep

>>1151486
2) >impossible for a human to do

dumbfag

>>1151486
>synthetics
Require petrol based chemicals
>hemp
Require dirt and water.

Your argument is invalid

>>1151414
>/sci/
>months

>>1151486
1) Forgot to mention only for certain cancers, whoops.
2) Yeah, I left out "you would die of smoke inhalation or pass out before you ever could overdose from it." The point still stands that it is essentially impossible to overdose from marijuana. Besides, the healthy way to use marijuana isn't to smoke it, it's to eat it (no bad side effects) or to steam the THC out of it (no bad side effects).
3) Meh, you may be right. Do you have any sources for that claim? I haven't looked into prices 'n shit for awhile.

>>1151490
You're arguing that India, China, and Ancient Egypt are lamer than Vikings on a SCIENCE board...
Vikings didn't contribute shit to science.

>>1151500
>thinks you can support the worlds fabric infrastructure by just growing hemp
>>1151499
No it's more than possible, Id say smoking 3 or 4 joints in a row would cause enough smoke damage to at least permanently scar your lungs

>>1151490
That attitude is worse than the junkies you scorn!

>>1151511
>Id say

would you? OK, I'm convinced.

>>1151509
Intelligent =/= not lame
Also they didn't make those discoveries because of weed, which is a stupid implication

>>1151519
>random facts of weed
>.....
>no that's wrong
>ZOMG where's the sources

>>1151511
>makes false claims without evidence.

>>1151523
see
>>1151522

Its funny how people who go drinking on a weekly basis always claim drugs are bad, when alcohol is a drug itself, just without the stigma of illegal drugs.

If you drink coffee and say that "drpgs r bayd", you should shoot yourself in the knee, because caffeine is just as much a drug as other recreational drugs.
Something like 200 mg of caffeine to a person with no tolerance has the same effects as a low dose of crack.

Anti drug people are hypocrites and just say that drugs are bad because they are illegal, when they themselves artifically induce happiness using entertainment.
Fark me, I wrote more than I intended and now I am trolled.

>>1151522
>starting to understand how asinine arguments against weed are

>>1151511
I doubt it. Cigarettes contain far more tar and nasty shit, and people smoke packs of them a day without immediate lung damage. It'd take tons of weed to cause any real lung damage, unless it is weed mixed with tobacco (a common smoking method is places like Amsterdam).


Besides, as has been noted, smoking is the most unhealthy way to smoke weed. It's the equivalent of drinking by shoving a bottle into your anus.

>>1151523
Well this will be easy, go smoke 5 joints in a row and come back unscathed. I'm gonna be so told when you don't suffocate

>>1151528

>>1151509
>Implying the only reasons those civilisations got anywhere was because of weed

>>1151530
>in 10 minutes

>>1151532
ON IT!

>>1151532
And you go smoke 5 unfiltered cigarettes in a row, we'll see who has the greater amount of tissue damage
"HURR DURR DERP, etcetera"

>>1151539
Suddenly thinking weed is bad = thinking tobacco is good

HURR DURR smoke damage is smoke damage you imbecile.

>>1151535
No one is implying that, jackass.

It's obvious that weed didn't HINDER Egypt's empire, though.

>>1151544
>you imbecile.

neckbeard mouth-breather detected

>>1151544
SMOKING ANYTHING IS BAD

BUT SMOKING CIGARETTES IS WORSE THAN SMOKING WEED

AND SMOKING WEED ISN'T THE HEALTHY WAY TO GET THC

I bet you drink Mountain Dew or some other caffeinated drink, too, hypocrite.

>>1151535
actually no, was just following the same bullshit reasoning as your initial argument.
>Civilizations that use weed: hippies and >Mexico
>Civilizations that use alcohol: vikings

>Weed 0
>Alcohol 1

>>1151544
No one was implying that tobacco is goo, simply pointing out the fact that marijuana is less harmful than tobacco.

>>1151545

Yay, and we totally have to do the stupid same shit some ancient cultures of thousands of years ago did.

>>1151547
Yes here's the breakdown of your logic
1) smoking is bad
2) smoking cigarettes is worse than weed
3) (completely assumed) we must smoke something
4) it should be weed, which is better
5) both weed and tobacco should be legalised
6) ZOMG you probably drink mountain dew (???)

Tell me honestly, are you high right now

>>1151551
No the argument here was
>you'd have to smoke 4000 joints in 10 minutes to have any harmful effects

Which I'm not gonna just let slide

I've tried many different drugs, many of which are definitely unhealthy. Of course, I've done a lot of things that aren't particularly good for my body. It's true that I may some day regret these decisions but right now I do not. I did these drugs because they gave me a different experience, something new. Sometimes it was fun and other times it was terrifying; it was almost interesting. Indeed, the thing that really put me off drugs (excepting booze and an occasional joint) is that the whole thing just got boring. After my stint of seven years, I haven't felt the need to go back in the last nine. Still, I value those experiences for what they taught me and because they were interesting at the time. Drugs aren't for everyone; skydiving isn't for everyone. Still, when I'm lying on my deathbed I don't think that I'll be wishing I had done less cocaine or taken one fewer tab of x.

>>1151558
Now you're just arguing semantics. It's obvious that he meant harmful effects from THC and other cannibinoids. We all know thta smoking ANY partially combusted plant matter is detrimental to our health.

I posted this in another thread and I guess it needs to be spread some more, because people use this alcohol argument way too fucking much.

Alcohol being worse than pot is not an argument for legalization, alcohol is ingrained into society to such a degree that it cannot be removed, pot is not.

>>1151568
Pretty sure it's not semantics when I can just copypaste the exact wording and you see where the problem is...

When I have kids that are going to be HS age in a few more years, I am going to be so glad I smoked pot so I will be able to understand it and be able to talk to them about it.

Some nerd that feared a plant because uncle sam told him to is going to raise kids that will go crazy with drugs. Just look at the kids mormons raise for evidence, some come out mormon, others come out fucking insane.

>>1151554
Your logic broke down at 3.

You ASSUMED that I'm saying that people should smoke anything, which is absolutely not the case. As I said, it is not healthy to smoke anything. It is perfectly healthy, however, to steam or eat marijuana.

I've never tried marijuana, and I don't smoke, either. I do, however, drink alcohol and caffeine, and take Adderall.

Drugs are not inherenetly bad, especially ones that are completely non-toxic like marijuana.

Anything in moderation is fine, and, as long as the person isn't harming others, it is no business of yours or the state's.

>>1151569
Also anything being worse than pot does not mean pot should be legalized. If anything this is an argument to ban alcohol.

>>1151577
>completely non toxic
Marijuana contains carcinogens, this is an undeniable fact

>>1151569
>freedom is ingrained into society to such a degree that it cannot be removed

fix'd

wtf business do you have telling me what I can burn and breate? It's none of your fucking business.

Fun fact: I don't smoke pot, but I HATE the idea of YOU telling ME I can't if I wanted to. Who the fuck are you?

>>1151578

Agree.

>>1151569
If you look at the numbers, marijuana use is widespread, and you have to consider the fact that marijuana use is likely to be significantly underreported. I doubt it's going anywhere. Also, (purely anecdotal I know) I don't smoke marijuana but from my experience among people old and young, professionals and losers, I am a minority in my non-use.

>>1151528
>Its funny how people who go drinking on a weekly basis always claim drugs are bad, when alcohol is a drug itself, just without the stigma of illegal drugs.
Who does this? Most people I know who drink a lot are also potheads.

>>1151574
Exact that you didn't copy anything, asshole.

My post:
>It would take over 4000 joints smoked in 10 minutes to overdose on it
>to overdose on it
"to overdose on it" =/= " to have any harmful effects"

It would take 4000 joints to overdose from marijuana.

It would take significantly less to die from smoke inhalation, sure, but you're more likely to pass out or forget how to light a blunt long before dying from smoke inhalation (I think, I've never tried weed before). Point is, it's impossible to physically and purposely overdose on THC.

>>1151585
>wtf business do you have telling me what I can burn and breate

Second hand smoke
Leaf burning laws
Arson laws
You're just being naive laws

>>1151593
Most junkies drink too, I don't know who they're attacking with the whole alcohol argument.

>>1151603
underage b& detected

>>1151594
Ok how many joints do you have to smoke in 10 mins to have a harmful effect?

>>1151581
The carcinogens come from combustion (as with all organic matter)
Try again.

>>1151581
Then why do cancer patients use weed?

Oh yeah, because it slows tumor growth (of some cancers).

>>1151611
Step 1) someone points out my blatant self-contradiction
Step 2) call them a troll, or underage
Step 3) ?????
Step 4) not look like I was blatantly wrong and got told

>>1151613
No they aren't the oils contain carcinogens

Try again

>>1151615
No, it's because fuck it I'm going to die high.

>>1151603

I know this is /sci/, but you should seriously consider reading some J.S. Mill if you can't differentiate your examples from marijuana prohibition.

>>1151615
Do you know what chemo is? Putting something into your body to treat tumors =/= that thing is beneficial for you

>>1151612
I've smoked several cigarettes in a 10-minute span, so at least several joints.

That's not the point, though. The point is that you cannot overdose from THC. It's WAY easier to overdose from caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, SMOKE INHALATION, or any number of other things than to OD on marijuana.

And you still haven't talked about anything other than smoking it. You refuse to comment on how it's COMPLETELY SAFE to eat it or steam it (unless you're allergic to it).

>>1151628
>marijuana prohibition
>what business do you have telling me what I can burn

2 completely different cases, broski

>>1151581
Only if burned, damn it!

You can make weed butter, and it will contain nearly zero carcinogens(I say nearly, because the butter might have some to start out with)

Vaporizing weed gives you quite literally no carcinogens. Just THC and a few other cannabinoids, which are absorbed into the blood stream, get deposited into neuroreceptors, and do shit for cell development.

>>1151623
NO. It's because it helps with a wide variety of symptoms, the most common of which is nausea and lack of appetite from chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Also, it has been proven that cannibinoids can slow and reverse the growth of some tumors.

>>1151619
Dude, we know we're all talking about smoking weed.

Second hand smoke
Leaf burning laws
Arson laws

sure, but the thing is, weed is illegal to smoke in my house, at my kitchen table, on my property. Some 15 year old kid that's gonna call "arson laws, haha ur dumm" telling me I can't smoke a plant in my own home is a faggot.

>>1151623
No, it's because, if you have a terminal and incurable/inoperable cancer, you can add twice as many years to your life by using weed, which slows (some) cancer growth a fuck-ton.

And also because, if you're going to die, might as well be in painless bliss, yeah. That's a secondary reason, though.

>>1151638
can you cite something to this effect

I like the idea of keeping it a controlled substance, like say vicodin(essentially heroin), which people will still abuse, but it has it's medical purposes.

No real reason for letting everybody smoke pot, you'd have to invent shit to test how high people are while driving.

>>1151642
>freedom
>wtf business do you have telling me what I can burn

Then word you're arguments less shittily next time. Also second hand smoke rules totally apply to marijuana, as it spreads carcinogens just as much

>>1151646
I have yet to see any citations for any of the anti-weed *propaganda* here, either.

>>1151637
>implying you telling me I can't =/= prohibition.

who do you think the gov is dumb ass?

>>1151656
underage b&

>>1151657
>propaganda
>weed contains carcinogens
>you have already agreed with me on this

So that's a no? Or do i really have to drag 1 of the thousands of studies proving smoking weed is carcinogenic?

>>1151653
Not really, people aren't allowed to drink and drive. DUI (or DWI depending on where you live) simply means "Driving Under the Influence" which currently extends to more than just alcohol, therefore driving while "high" would immediately fall into this category.

>>1151660
>Implying you're telling me what I can't burn = what I can't smoke

>>1151653
There's no real reason to NOT let everyone use pot, though.

What's next, only allowing certain people to play video games because "hurr there's no reason to let college kids play them, it could get in the way of their studying"? It is not the government's business at all what a person does in their own fucking home.

>>1151665
see
>>1151619

>>1151667
Still can't let go of the smoking thing can we. Doctors who PRESCRIBE medical marijuana suggest INGESTING it, as opposed to SMOKING it.
As many people have already stated in this fucking thread. Your argument is invalid.

>>1151683
And as I have said, I'd like some proof to this point.Because I looked and can't find anything saying that only smoking marijuana is carcinogenic

>>1151667
I never agreed that weed had carcinogens. Some other poster said that there was when it was SMOKED, but that there isn't when it is steamed or ingested.

And, considering it slows cancer growth, Imma need to see some citations for weed having carcinogens (from ingestion, we agree that it has carcinogens when smoked, but smoking is the retard way to use it).

>>1151667

you are having issues grasping this 'smoking' business.

>>1151690
Find something that specifically says alternate means of use (e.g. ingesting) marijuana is carcinogenic. You made the statement that it is, therefore you have the burden of proof.

>>1151673
see
>>1151665

Look dude, trying to find a flaw in an argument based on how certain wording can carry a different meaning makes you sound like a 15 year old faggot, we all know the conversation is about weed here.

bested.

>>1151693
>>1151699
Yes, which is why any study at all would help me a lot. Because you guys seem to be having a hard time grasping this"not everything someone says on the internet is true" thing

>>1151693
>I never agreed that weed had carcinogens
>I never agreed that weed
>I never agreed

Very scientific.

ITT: Parrots who remember their DARE sessions in middle school.

>>1151702
You keep calling me a 15 year old, it totally gives away your samefaggotry

>>1151637

True enough. In that case I'd recommend any number of introductory texts on linguistics in which you'd learn about things like the quality of information. Seriously, if you take such a literalist approach to communication that you interpret that post as defense of all burning then it must be very hard for you to function.

>>1151717
Hurr durr, pretty sure that the information presented in the original argument was "why does the government get to make rules as to what I smoke" to which I pointed out that said rules are already in place

>>1151674
>There's no real reason to NOT let everyone use pot, though.
yes there are, nobody wants to be around potheads (just like nobody wants to be around alcoholics, but that issue was already covered)

>>1151712
>implying thats a bad thing

we have conversations here brah, there really isn't that many people on here.

<----- the gay/b/ar is that way, I suggest you head over there

>>1151717
Literalism doesn't make it hard, but being around people that think they can throw around big words and somehow skirt the issue does

To the one or two other people who have been logically arguing for the proper use of marijuana in this thread, kudos.
For the asshat that is against, who gloms onto semantics rather than content and context, and makes bold assetions based on no evidence, eat a dick.
>FuckthisthreadImouttahere.jpg

>>1151731
This is the most one sided debate i've ever been in. I bring facts you bring nothing but insults

>>1151726
>nobody wants to be around potheads

Such is the nature of a social stigma.

>>1151741
Such is the nature of potheads

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis-associated_respiratory_disease#Cancer_risk

"Surprisingly, an extensive study published in 2006 by Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles found that there is no significant link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer."

Of particular note:
"Cannabis smoke (but not the plant itself) has recently been added to a "list of substances California regulators say cause cancer"[17]. California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard assessment has added cannabis smoke to the list after it found that it "contains 33 of the same harmful chemicals as tobacco smoke."[18]"

Nothing to support that marijuana has carcinogens, only that marijuana smoke does...

>Come from 420chan
>YOU FOLLOW ME EVERY SINGLE TIME

>>1151726
Yeah, just like nobody wanted to be around blacks, gays, atheists, etcetera etcetera etcetera.

>>1151705
Here
Still waiting guys

>>1151743
According to your personal prejudice.
Give it up already. You are a machine whose behavior is dictated by society.

>>1151738
>calls samefag
>gets sent to /b/
>BAWWWWW

>>1151646
K:http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizerstudy2.html

"The respiratory hazards of marijuana and tobacco smoke are due to toxic byproducts of combustion, not the active ingredients in the plant, known as cannabinoids."

However I will admit, it may be a bit biased considering the funders. "Harmful toxins in marijuana smoke can be effectively avoided by a vaporization device, according to a new study by California NORML and MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) with support from a grant from the MPP (Marijuana Policy Project)."

I want to see the actual study, but I can't find it.

>>1151744
Nothing to support that marijuana contains no carcinogens either...

>>1151741
gimme a break, I live in santa cruz, I'm around potheads 24-fucking-7 and they are worse off for it.

>>1151320
Are you retarded? Non-drug users have made it ILLEGAL to use them. How is that not the most invasive thing they could possibly have done legally?

>>1151744
any plant material that is burned with an open flame produces tar, which is a carcinogen.

Whether anyone can provide sufficient evidence that marijuana is unhealthy aside, this thread does prove that some people get defensive about the conversation. That's pretty surprising to me.

>>1151753
>norml
>he thinks I'm going to take this seriously

Yeah, camel has put out a lot of studies about cigarretes being harmless too

>>1151757
Well shit, you know what. LETS BAN BACON it has carcinogens.

>>1151759
No, I'm not going to give you a break. More people use cannabis than you even know. Most of them are productive members of society. Potheads, as in those people who replace everything in their lives with it, are very much a minority in the community.

>>1151762
I get pretty defensive about faggots that have the idea they can tell me what I can and can't do with regards to my own personal liberties that effect no one else.

>>1151753
>>1151757
can you two shut up about vaporizers, you know 99% of pot users smoke it in a joint or bong. you could probably vaporize tobacco too, you're just ignoring any real issues.

>>1151769
If there were no way people could prove bacon was not I'd be for it

Protip: look up the ames test and stop the stupid intentional fallacies

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm
Study finds no link between lung cancer and marijuana.

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-doesnt-kill
Marijuana smoking doesn't kill.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/06/cannabis_psychosis_study/
Study clears cannabis of psychosis rap.

>>1151792
>schizophrenia =all psychoses

Keep telling yourself that

Also
>webmd
L O L

>>1151777
>Most of them are productive members of society.
doubt it, most people that meet with drug dealers on a regular basis are not productive members of society.

btw, what's wrong with it being the way it is now? would you rather people be allowed to smoke it in the street or at work or buy it from a shop instead of a dealer? how would legalization change these people's lives for the better?

>>1151781
He's not ignoring the real issues, he's responding to the opposing argument about smoking, which has yet to relent. Also, how about we get off the carcinogens topic? All things considered, it is obviously less harmful than many legal recreational and prescription drugs. let's hear a valid argument as to why marijuana should remain illegal....

>>1151792
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/10/1829.full.pdf

The actual report for that first link.

>>1151799
Are you a creationist? Because you're using pretty much the exact same arguments - laughing off a source because you don't agree with it.

>>1151792
ok, one study each.

the general rule in science is that if it can't be replicated by other researches it is usually untrue.

>>1151803
Because less harmful =/=harmless

>>1151757

>>1151761
Exactly why smoking marijuana is essentially like getting drunk by shoving a bottle up your ass. You're supposed to steam it or ingest it.

Actually, check out what I found. Smoking causes 118 carcinogens to be made. Steaming causes 2 to be made. The way it is written implies that simple ingestion has NO carcinogens.

"Dale Gieringer et al., which found that 118 carcinogens were produced when marijuana underwent combustion, and two carcinogens {2-Methyl-2, 4(2H-1-benzopyran-5-ol) & 5-[Acetyl benz[e]azulene-3,8-dione} formed when marijuana underwent vaporization with the Volcano Vaporizer."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12119125

From that Wiki on weed cancer risk.

>>1151810
Nobody said harmless except you.

>>1151808
>laughing off a source because you don't agree with it

That's not how it works, I'm laughing it off because webmd is to science as Wikipedia is to history

>>1151817
No but you're saying less harmful = legalize it. That's stupid on multiple levels

>>1151802
It's principle dude, tell me: who are you to tell me I can't. Simple.

What power were you born with that gives you this right to tell me what I can and can't smoke, regardless of health issues. I am informed, and I would like to make an informed choice, you are denying me that. Who gave you the right to decide for me?

>>1151781
I'm not arguing whether smoking weed is bad for you or not, I was just told that someone wanted a citation on whether the weed itself is bad for you.

Also, out of the potheads I know(totally scientific) 12/35 won't smoke from anything but a volcano, 15/35 smoke out of a vaporizer if at all possible(including bringing one with them if they go out). The rest just smoke what ever.

>>1150915
c3a8d5a2b10318880707cafc3ef86666 kindly re move you r ille gal clo ne and give back our dom ain chrisb ear pol e see http:// tinyurl . com / 36wo8m5

>>1151825
>tell me: who are you to tell me I can't. Simple.
a citizen

>>1151803
i could think of a few.

1. some people just aren't responsible with their drug use. we see it all the time with legal drugs, do you really wanna add to the list?
2. that shit they put in cigarettes, all those chemicals, will now be in your weed. do you want that?
3. Too hard to regulate. sure, a lot of people will go for the high quality, taxable gov't weed, but you know there will be a good portion still buying homegrown, or making their own. it's too easy for any dipshit to grow marijuana in their mom's basement.(more of a reason the gov't wont' make it legal than an actual argument)

>>1151814
>insisted none this whole thread
>suddenly we're up to 2
Can't wait to see where this goes as you put forth more "support" for your claims

>>1151821
>laughing it off

>>1151821
>SOURCE: Sidney, S. The British Medical Journal, Sept. 20, 2003; vol 327: pp 635-636.

>>1151824
Less harm, IN COMBINATION with its benefits as well as simple personal liberty (I should be allowed to put into my body what I want to) make it pretty clear it should be legalized.

>>1151802
In the street? No, no one is saying that at all. Much like it's illegal to be drunk in public.

However, being able to buy it in a legal (and taxed) smoke shop will greatly reduce violent crime, as gangs will lose most of their power. Not only that, people will be able to buy it safely from a smoke shop instead of risking their money and their lives buying from some street thug that could lace it with who-knows-what.

We would save BILLIONS on this retarded "war on drugs" and get tons of completely innocent people out of prison.

>>1151838
Now we're at
>greentext
reaction image?

Yes,clearly I'm the only one here who's just dismissing people

>>1151810
ZOMFG you're obviously fucking trolling. 8/10
But seriously, everything is harmful to an extent, and many things that are very harmful are perfectly legal, so why don't you come up with a valid argument against marijuana use and legalization instead of nitpicking everyone else's?

>>1151847
I don't know if you noticed, but trolls aren't welcome in /sci/.

>>1151851
I'd love to play with you but....
I don't have to
Unless you guys can justify legalizing it (which you haven't) I win

you guys realize the lawmakers aren't keeping these laws in place based on health or principle don't you?

>>1151854
Which is why I'm trying to get rid of him

>>1151824
Cars, alcohol, Tylenol, penicillin, and a trillion other totally legal things are more dangerous than marijuana, yet are legal.

Who gives a fuck what I put in my body in my own home? If I want to KILL MYSELF, I should be allowed to. You don't live in a free society if you can't control what you put in your own fucking body.

>>1151859
Yes it's those corporations being all corporationy

Also weed doesn't cause unjustified paranoia

>>1151832
I'm a citizen too, how does your word dictate what I can do if it effects no one but me?

Does your moral compass guide us better than I could guide myself?

Carl sagan is a fucking idiot and can fuck off. OH AND "weed doesn't give you cancer" GUESS WHO DIED OF CANCER? CARL 'SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY' SAGAN.

TOLD.

>>1151866
Well thats your view, but unfortunately living in a democracy does not entitle you to just run around saying "personal liberty,I do whatever the fuck I want"

>>1151725

Quality of information is the concept that statements require exactly the amount of information necessary to convey meaning within the context of the statement. For example, when you read, "wtf business do you have telling me what I can burn and breate," you can take this extremely literally as a query regarding the appropriateness of all legislation regarding burning (arson, etc.) or you can examine it within the context of the discourse (anti-drug laws) and see it as an appeal to the concept of individual liberty (as espoused by Mill and others). You might argue that it was not contextually clear, but I tend to think that you were willingly misinterpreting it to score some kind of argumentative point.

Really though, this whole conversation is pretty tedious...

to all of you faggots talking about taxing and cleaning up crime. sure, it'll clean up inner city niggers and spics, but you still have the people who will still grow and sell their own. it happens in the south with moonshine.

>>1151875
>living in a democracy

argument discarded

>>1151881
So you don't?

>>1151866
>i am a libertarian faggot.

>>1151866
>Who gives a fuck what I put in my body in my own home? If I want to KILL MYSELF, I should be allowed to. You don't live in a free society if you can't control what you put in your own fucking body.
Then you don't live in a free society. If you live in the united states then you're not legally allowed to kill yourself, and you're legally obligated to wear a seat belt and motorcycle helmet.

>>1151846
That's really why I want it off the streets and into a shop. Take alcohol prohibition for example, when it was illegal, the gang businesses profited more than anyone, huge amounts of money was wasted by the government and more people drank than when it was legal.

>>1151802
Many people buy things other than weed from drug dealers. And where do you think Carl Sagan got his weed?

>>1151878
thanks for coming to my defense anon, brofist.

I was facepalming hard when I saw where he/she was going with it

>>1151874
He died of myelodysplasia not lung cancer, faggot.

>>1151875
>Forgot the part about not affecting others.

>>1151883
You don't understand murrica do you?

democracy: 2 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner, etc..

>>1151835
It may have carcinogens, but it doesn't lead to higher rates of cancer, because, if you would read the rest of it, THC causes older cells to die faster, essentially causing them to die before they get old enough to develop cancer. Pretty cool mechanism.

Also, oh wow, two carcinogens. Basically everything has some tiny carcinogen in it these days.

>>1151881
The green countries on this chart identify themselves as "democratic"
If you're currently in one of them STFU

>>1151871
>I'm a citizen too, how does your word dictate what I can do if it effects no one but me?
same reason seatbelt laws, helmet laws and suicide laws exist.
>Does your moral compass guide us better than I could guide myself?
Rule of law operates under the assumption of moral subjectivity, so if the majority of the country decide against you, you can either live with it or move to another country.

>>1150916

f49cf216e65667628e5e38652d756ed5 kindly re move you r ille gal clo ne and give back our dom ain chrisb ear pol e see http:// tinyurl . com / 36wo8m5

>>1151915
>Rule of law operates under the assumption of moral subjectivity

I love you
Finally something that gets that

>>1151887
Yes, I understand this. Most (all) countries are not free countries.

>>1151919
*someone* lol

>>1151915
>same reason seatbelt laws, helmet laws and suicide laws exist.

wrong. driving on public roads is a privilege. you want to know why seat belt laws are in place? To prevent this, it effects someone else. Someone has to clean it up.

>>1151915
>*bleet*

>>1151921
Yes how unfortunate, you have a lifespan of over your natural 20 years but "the man" gets to tell you if you smoke weed or not. I really wanna just cry thinking about it

>>1151935
Oh no the sheeple people are here

Did everyone remember their foil hat?

>>1151932
>it effects someone else. Someone has to clean it up.
you really think the law is about cleaning up and not say.... people dying?

>>1151936
>accepts other men's power over his own body

sad day, man

>>1151915
"The majority" is slowly becoming not the majority. How are you going to deal with that?

>>1151935
>>1151936
>>1151942
Fuck. This just truned into trollland

>>1151915
So if 51% of the people in your town decided that they wanted you to be killed, that's okay, because "hurr majority rools!"

Or 51% of your state? Of your country?

That's not how it works, faggot. "Tyranny of the majority" is specifically WHY the US has the Bill of Rights, to prevent faggots like you from forcing your insane morals on others.

>>1151904
claiming to be democratic and applying democracy are two different things. just look at the 2000 election in the US

>>1151945
that is the legal justification, also he who makes the roads decides the rules.

What part did you take in the making of my body? Dad?

>>1151945
Most laws exist thinking only about the mass and not the individual. Suicide is only illegal because other people have to suffer from it (also if it wasn't illegal cops couldn't do anything to stop you)

>>1151945
In some cases, yes. Are you really naive enough to believe against it? It's illegal to park in a handicap parking spot. Last I checked nobody ever died when a disabled person had to park fifty feet further away from the entrance to a store.

>>1151780

You can defend yourself and your rights without getting defensive. Defensiveness clouds arguments. For example, you're arguing about the safety of marijuana smoking or eating or whatever. That's besides the point. Your fundamental issue is one of liberty: it's a social science debate not a medical one. By losing track of the crux of the matter you allow yourself to be drawn into more and more tangential issues like whether or not you're advocating arson.

You've also found yourself debating with someone who seems more interested in "winning" than anything else. The actual subject matter is less important than argument itself. If you can keep from becoming defensive you'd recognize the futility of your goal.

>>1151948
>assumes he know's better than everybody telling him it's a bad idea

>>1151953
So what, are you really one of those people that believes that the masses always know better than the people hired to represent them. Almost every "democracy" has been an indirect one since rome

>>1151961
Yeah that's why I stopped arguing near the middle of this thread and just started trolling. I realized that the guy arguing against was retarded and decided to embrace the humor rather than get mad

coolface.jpg

Marijuana was legal up until 1937.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew it in their own home gardens.

There is no reason for it to be illegal besides "hurr drugs are bad."

Why are we still arguing about this?

>>1151948
Not even that
>gets the benefit of millions of people working together
>gives up small personal liberties

Just because I'm not allowed to kill someone doesn't mean I don't enjoy other people not being allowed to kill me

>>1151979
Slavery was illegal even after that
G wash and Jefferson had oodles of slaves
There is no reason to ban slavery besides, lol personal integrity

>>1151969
Technically these democracies (as with Rome) are Representative Republics... True democracy cannot exist outside of tiny community.

>>1151982
I doubt very many people would argue that you should be allowed to kill other people. To make a comparison with cannabis use is simply ridiculous.

>>1151982
>doesn't understand "as long as they're not harming others" aspect of every liberty argument

I smoke weed in my house while playing video games. No one is harmed. Why should this be illegal, again?

>>1151998
No the argument here is "how can you let the government boss you around"
with the very correct, simple response of:
"the benefits are waaaaay better than what I give up"

What if the druggie can enjoy life but is not as much of a pussy to venture into alternate states of mind?

I don't do any drugs, but you're a laughable DARE cadet.

>>1151988
Funny that you're comparing slavery, which takes away all liberties, with making weed legal, which GIVES more liberty.

Troll harder.

>>1151998
Not in the context of this debate. No, Arguemnt.

Why it's really illegal:

William Randolph Hearst and the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division of Kimberly Clark owned vast acreage of timberlands. The Hearst Company supplied most paper products. Patty Hearst's grandfather, a destroyer of nature for his own personal profit, stood to lose billions because of hemp.

In 1937, Dupont patented the processes to make plastics from oil and coal. Dupont's Annual Report urged stockholders to invest in its new petrochemical division. Synthetics such as plastics, cellophane, celluloid, methanol, nylon, rayon, Dacron, etc., could now be made from oil. Natural hemp industrialization would have ruined over 80% of Dupont's business.

>>1152001
Because majority rule. You silly billy. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you obey in a democratic government. If you're in for one you're in for all

>>1152016
see
>>1151859

you can argue over the logic in it's illegality, but the fact remains that it is illegal, and that you are breaking the law. you can say "it's a dumb law" or other stupid arguments to make yourself feel superior, but you are still breaking the law. society cannot exist without laws and rules, and you are fucking with the program. kindly GTFO of my society.

>>1152015
>>1151998
It's about rights and responsibilities. You can't just take whatever rights you want while imposing whatever responsibilities you want. If you want the benefit of the society you're in you have to play by its rules

>>1152017
>Because majority rule

see: Bill of Rights

>>1152017
see:
>>1151951

Also, the US is not a "democracy," it is a constitutional republic, which means that certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS are guaranteed. One is a right to privacy. Oh wait, the federal government is infringing on that right...

>>1152007
No, the argument is "why should the government boss you around when you AREN'T HARMING OTHERS?"

>>1152017
Yes you do, the people have a right to exact change in legislature, which always begins with revolution, be it large or small.

>>1152014
Funny that your entire argument was "it was legal 200 years ago so it should be legal now"

>>1151979
Lets be pragmatic then, consider how many people would suffer from the legalization of pot (lose their job,relationship,life), I'm completely guessing, but I'll be generous and say 1-3% of pot smokers becomes psychologically addicted.

This country (USA) has a good history of trading away civil liberties in exchange for the good of the people, this isn't anything new.

>>1152048
Yeah like alcohol prohibition. They should have kept alcohol illegal too.

>>1152040
See any of the other posts about this. If you're given a law you follow it.
>why were you jaywalking
>officer I don't harm anybody
>lol, jail time

>>1152037
But when 4 out of 10 adults ADMIT to trying weed, with the number rising greatly, it's pretty clear that the law needs to be changed, since no one is being hurt, which is the reason that laws are in place, to prevent people's rights or liberties from being infringed.

>>1152035
>Doesn't understand civil disobedience.
>Will reply to this post with "Fucking hippy" or equivalent.

>1-3% of pot smokers becomes psychologically addicted.

lol'd, are we really pretending the law stops anyone from smoking?

>>1152051
Sure is 1984 in here.

>>1152035
I'm not much of a fan of government. It has its uses. I just don't like a lot of it.

I honestly wouldn't mind a society like that in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'

>>1152062
Well you have every right to try to change the law, but until then just sitting around saying "I should be able to do this so I will" isn't going to cut it.

>>1152072
see
>>1152066

>>1152061
>inherent dangers to others involved with jaywalking

check.

>>1152051
I think that the number of lives that are ruined from weed being illegal is far far higher.

See: number of people in prison for non-violent and victimless crimes.

>>1152067
>implying law doesn't do anything, so we should remove it

>>1152084
>implying that wasn't why the 18th amendment was repealed.

>>1152084
>implying you didn't understand what I was implying

>>1152067
It definitely does. Most major professionals are drug tested regularly

>>1152066
no. i reply by calling bullshit.

making marijuana illegal has no profound impact on anything of importance except maybe in a medical environment. civil disobedience is for important things like social injustices. and anything beyond that requires armed conflict.

>>1152078
Ok, repeat with suicide

mate

>IMPLYING

>implying that you implied
>that I implied
>that you implied I was implying
>implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying
>implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying
>implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying
>implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying
>implying >implying >implying >implying >implying

>>1152097
see
>>1151958

I WIN AT CHESS GAEM

>>1152092
And somehow a massive percentage of the workers in those professions still smoke.

>>1152090
yeah, except it does

Sure is /b/ in here...

>>1152096
So the government telling me what I can and can't put in my body when it is of risk (minor, even, compared to alcohol and tobacco) only to myself is not a civil injustice?

>>1152109
Yes but a large proportion is also deterred. You can lose most medical licenses (nurse, md, Pmd) if you are caught with drugs

Hay Guise...
Guise...
SHH!
Marijuana, it's cheap...
guys, it's cheap and easy to get...also high quality...
...why legalize?

>>1152121
Which is funny because something like 40% of people in the medical profession have some form or another of substance abuse problems.

>>1152120
it is, as a voter, i would agree to forfeit that liberty so that you could not have it.

>>1152120
no. not really. sounds like a personal issue. recreational marijuana use is wasteful anyways.

>>1152130
>76% of all statistics are made up on the spot

>>1152121
So let's make sure we have as few Doctors as possible, because of frivolous drug use on their own time? Regardless of whether or not is effects their skill as a physician? MAKES SENSE.

>>1152096
It IS a social injustice to force people to not put a simple fucking plant in their own body for no good reason.

>>1152125
A large portion of the cost actually goes into its secure transportation, as well as the fact that it's illegal causing growers to charge more to make up for the risk. Once legalized this isn't so much a concern, and so taxation won't actually make it significantly more expensive. It might even be cheaper than it is now.

Besides, it will be more plentiful, and you won't have to hide it as much.

>>1152131
Well...you're a dick. Fuck you.

I am a marijuana grower, and I think it should stay ILLEGAL. You know why, because I make six figures and I don't want anyone to fuck with my income.

>>1152121
I'm talkin about pot. I'm an EMT, and I smoke on nearly a weekly basis with the rest of the guys in the building(and that does include doctors, btw). However, we do have the unwritten rule that if you bring drugs to work we send you home. If you're involved with hard drugs, we ensure you get fired, and hopefully loose your license.

>>1152134
Recreational video game use is a waste anyways. Let's make it illegal.

Recreational 4chan surfing is a waste anyways. Let's make it illegal.

>>1152130
I would rather have my surgeon not smoke pot, even if its in the comfort of his house 2 weeks before my surgery.

>>1152144
You won't make six figures sitting in jail, asshole.

>>1152137
Oh please, if you have to chose between Dr. Sober and Dr. Just lit up a few hours ago to operate on your brain who would it be

>>1152138
no. a social injustice is inequality based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, mental capacity, political affiliation, culture, etc. sure, it's a shame the gov't has to pass legislation to protect dumbasses like from themselves, but it surely isn't a social injustice.

>>1152157
How about Dr. Drunk and Dr. Sober?

Your argument is invalid unless you think doctors shouldn't be allowed to drink a beer after work.

>>1152154
Yeah, well Capone had a good run, mine is just getting started.

>>1152153
I'd rather my surgeon not drink alcohol or coffee, either, but as long as it's way before my surgery, I have no legal control over his habits, nor should I.

>>1152157
Dr. Lit Up Just a Few Hours Ago wouldn't happen because doctors don't want to get sued for medical malpractice.

>>1152161
brofist

>>1152158
You don't get to tell me what a social injustice is or isn't.

>>1152165
Shit yeah bro.

>>1152143
I think you could do more with your life if you didn't do drugs.

>>1152157
>if you have to chose between Dr. Sober and Dr. Just lit up a few hours ago to operate on your brain who would it be

that's my choice as a consumer, and the doctors are going to have to adjust their habits accordingly if they want money.

lrn2freedom

>>1152159
To be honest if I could really choose between Dr. Teetotaler and Dr. Guinness I'd take sober every time. Furthermore if I had to chose between doctors not getting to drink and doctors getting to smoke guess which one I'd take....

>>1152158
>a social injustice is inequality based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, mental capacity, political affiliation, culture, etc.
>implying discrimination based on a favoring of cannabis isn't inequality based on "religion...political affiliation, culture, etc

>>1152158
Since when is social injustice narrowed down to that?

>>1152171
I think you could do more with your life if you weren't completely ignorant.

>>1152176
>cannabis
>religion
Wow, I knew you guys were self-righteous but this is just incredible

>>1150914

1b8cc63f911ff1fc6edee269a10e74b7 kindly re move you r ille gal clo ne and give back our dom ain chrisb ear pol e see http:// tinyurl . com / 36wo8m5

>>1152167
really now? so what you're saying is that social injustice has no definite definition? it is up for interpretation? it means whatever you want it to? now you are being a hippy retard.

>>1152173
>freedom
>do what my money tells you

No, pretty sure it's you who doesn't quite get freedom

>>1152163
I would second, but from first hand experience, I can say a ridiculous number of our surgeons come in to surgery drunk. The guys who deal face-to-face with patients don't though. Reassuring, isn't it?

>>1152176
i suppose ritual sacrifice should be legal then, seeing as how so many religions have practiced it.

>>1152167
>You don't get to tell me what a social injustice is or isn't.
>social injustice
>society

>>1152189

>do what my money tells you if you want me to give it to you

fix'd

lrn2freedom

>>1152189
Capitalism is what makes democracy work, although on the flipside it's also what's destroying it....
Fuuuuuu-

>>1152179
Right, because smoking pot will open up my mind to all sorts of new possibilities and shit. Tried it, still think it should be illegal.

>>1152213
I tried tobacco, it was shit, I think it should be illegal.

>>1152213
>tried it
I think you should be fined for that choice, and all of you financial aid should be taken away. Sensible?

>>1152197
Nice wordplay there. Too bad it doesn't mean anything.

>>1152198
>you get this doctor and will like it or that tumor kills you, also give us your money

True freedom

>>1152180
>ignores "political affiliation, culture, etc"

>>1152194
As long as all parties are consenting, sure. I think that suicide should be legal, too. What another person does with his body, as long as he isn't harming others, is no business of mine or yours. In fact, it is essentially torture to NOT allow a person to kill himself if he wants to.

>>1152218
Well it's a good think the representatives you elected disagree with you then

>>1152213
TBH, I smoke cuz it's fun. Same reason I go to work, buy stuff and surf the net.

>>1152228
If I was supposed to just ignore religion he wouldn't have put it in in the first place

>>1152225

>>1152228
you're just being a troll now.


you know, most survivors of serious suicide attempts claim to coming to the realization that all their problems were manageable and that they have made a terrible mistake.

>>1152235
I was referencing that you choose your religion, political affiliation, and culture, much like you choose to use weed, and that, as long as you aren't harming others, it should be legal. To not allow others to use it just because you don't like it is discrimination in the same vein as discriminating based on religion, etc.

>>1152252
I'm not the guy you were referencing, all I say was that you chose to include it in your counter point

>>1152219
I only tried it because I was an impressionable teenager and thought that just maybe you weren't retarded. If you're a kid, a slap on the wrist is fine, if you're in college then you should know better or don't get caught (kind of like pirating shit).

tl,dr; yes

>>1152219
Only possession is illegal, looks like the law is fairly just after all

>>1152267
>you should know better

How? I've never tried it, do I take your word for it?

I don't like the idea of you telling me "no, you can't, because I say so. I tried it in HS and happen to be an expert on the subject"

>any rational thread
>56 posts

>weed troll thread
>350 posts

>>1152278
You should try killing yourself too, just to find out

>>1152267
>or don't get caught

Makes a whole lot of fucking sense to me. Pirating causes more harm to society than weed, yet there are many people that want their free shit.

>>1152267
Ever try alcohol? Caffeine? Adderall? Tylenol? Vikodin? Nicotine?

If you think that any of those should be legal, then you're a hypocrite.

>>1152286
0/10

>>1152282
Because some authoritarian asshole keeps trying to argue that weed should be illegal because HE doesn't like it.

>>1152292
>hypocrite
>extremely effective painkillers

Yes, because why should people comfortably recover from surgery if you can't toke up

>>1152302
Spoiler alert


Hes just one person get the fuck over it

>>1152302
>Implying that that isn't just how society is.
Lame but true.

>>1152302

Because potheads bawwwww when you question their stupid decisions

Just to let you guys know, I've posted about 20 times ITT against legalization.

But in reality I want it legalized, just so that all the potheads could get their hands on as much pot as they wanted and just sit at home and smoke pot all day every day so that I don't have to see them or have this conversation with anyone ever again.

I really couldn't care less about people smoking pot, as long as they stop telling me how awesome it is. They sound JUST like those frat douches that start every conversation with "Duuuuuuuuuuude, I was sooooooo wasted last night..."

>>1152302
>one person
>society and lawmakers

Yes, clearly we anti weed people are far outnumbered here. We just use tricks to make it look like the majority of people disagree with you

>>1152304
>he forgets the negative side effects, i.e. vicodin is extremely addictive and harmful in several ways

>>1152288
People don't kill or gun each by the numbers other over some pirated songs.

>>1152318
I'm kinda with you on this, I've considered legalizing it just so I don't have to listen to people who think weed being illegal is the greatest
>social injustice
since the holocaust

>>1152318
Fucking this.

Also, it's a source of (often violent) crime.

>>1152323
Nor will they over weed when it's legalized. This happens BECAUSE it's illegal.

>>1152329
Nobody ever said that. I said it was A social injustice, not by far the worst one.

>>1152321
We'll see, won't we?

California and Detroit both have legalization on their ballots this year. Should be an interesting year. I think that both will legalize it.

>>1152341
>california and detroit

Weed legalization coincides with economic fiasco? Surely that's just a coincidence

>>1152341
>I think that both will legalize it.

I do too, and when the dust from the massive shitstorm that will ensue has cleared we'll see that it all came from the sheep who believed what the government told them.

>>1152350
It's not a coincidence, but to suggest that people are supporting legalization for purely economic reasons is naive.

>>1152337
A lot of it would vanish, yes. But also many junkies commit theft to finance their little habits.

>>1152278
>>1152292
great, the argument went from legalize pot to legalize everything.

fuck it would be awesome if people had access to all drugs, and just made up their minds about trying them or not, nothing would go wrong.

>>1152362
I was thinking more of rome and the coliseum. The govt is just trying to numb its people to whats actually happening

>>1152363
Anybody that does would be susceptible to stealing for other items regardless, since weed isn't addictive.

>>1152350
I'm not complaining.

It's about time someone gets the ball rolling.

Once California legalizes it, I predict that, within 5 years, 2 more states will legalize it. Within 15, 10 states (including my home state of Michigan) will legalize it.

I predict complete legalization within 2 years in the city of Ann Arbor, which already has it de-criminalized ($25 fine for a first offense! Woo hoo!).

I don't even smoke pot, never have, but I'm still excited to watch liberty spreading throughout the country. And state's rights. States have the legal ability to ban marijuana (as much as I dislike them doing so), but the federal government does not.

>>1152371
All of the drugs that I listed are more harmful than marijuana.

>>1152377
>I don't even smoke pot, never have, but I'm still excited to watch liberty spreading throughout the country.

Percentage of people here buying this: 0%
Just drop your pretense already

>>1152377
>Ann Arbor

Funny you mention that. I go to UM and tried weed the first time about a week before 4/20. Loved it.

>>1152377
You seem too excited by this

>>1152387
I buy it, I'm another anon in the same circumstance. You're a fag.

>>1152387
I find it funny that you think that I'm lying.

I was never offered pot when I was younger, and now that I'm in college, I am not using it partially as an act of defiance, to prove a point to myself.

Doesn't stop me from supporting its legalization, though.

I'm really interested in trying Salvia and DMT, though. That shit looks fucking awesome. Just need the money and the place to get it...

>>1152398
People here who think you aren't a samefag: 0%

>>1152404
see
>>1152401
>>1152398

ouch

>>1152404
>>1152387
People here who care about what you think re samefagging: 0.

OP here - it's a art

>>1152406
Well that disproves that hypothesis.

>>1152409
coherent words in that post: 4/8

>>1152415
Well that proxies that hypothesis

>>1152390
Holy shit, no joke?

I go to U of M too. Well, I'm suspended from U of M because my first semester was horrible (a myriad of issues including bi-polar disorder, but whatever).

Did you live in the dorms? I lived in Baits II.

>>1152419
PROBABLY

>>1152420
The pro weed guy just got suspended from college

Shockandawe.jpg

>>1152419
People don't fucking use proxies just so they can samefag more rapidly.

>>1152413

Hahaha, I'm OP.

Never thought this thread would go this far, haha.

>>1152420
Baits I.

>>1152425
never been to the gay/b/ar eh?

>>1152377
> but the federal government does not.
thats funny because the DEA (federal enforcement) conducts raids on medical marijuana facilities in california (where they are legal)

pot IS illegal under federal law, that's why they have the jurisdictional authority to do that.

>>1152431
This is /sci/. Don't be an idiot. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

>>1152430
>>1152420

>>1152430
Hah. That's crazy. Never expected to see someone else from U-M on here.

By any chance, did you take Calc II this year?

(For those that made fun of the fact that I was suspended from college, I happened to basically be the smartest in my math class, it was just that I took 16 credits when it turns out that's WAYYY beyond my ability, when it included Latin, Calc II, Organic Chemistry, and some ridiculous Art History class).

>Calc II
>Organic Chemistry

recipe for disaster

>>1152447
II and III. II was fine, Honors III raped me.

>>1152432
But, in my opinion (and the opinion of at least 3 Supreme Court Justices), the federal government doesn't have the *constitutional* ability to regulate pot growth like that. They are only allowed to regulate *interstate and international trade.*

>>1152452
>regulate pot growth
what does growth have to do with anything, i think it's sale

>>1152448
Yeah, no one told me this, and by the time the semester was half-over I was failing or close-to-failing every class but Calc II (which I was excelling in, I fucking love math). Too late to get out of them, I basically said "fuck it" and stopped showing up to Orgo and Art Hist to focus on Calc and Latin.

>>1152449
If you took II this year...did you happen to have a guy named "Henry" as your teacher? The odds are incredibly small, I know, but if you were in my class...

>>1152457
>Henry

FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

The guy with the fucking cap?

>>1152457
>but if you were in my class...
If you're implying that I'll help you with orgo chem if you suck my cock, then yeah sure.

>>1152457
>>1152463
>>1152468
oh boy, that's gonna be an awkward first meeting.

>>1152455
The federal government argues that, because of some bullshit ruling about corn a long time ago, that they can regulate marijuana growth WITHIN a state because it affects trade BETWEEN states, too.

I know. Flimsy argument.

Here's the Supreme Court case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

The founding fathers would be disgusted...

>>1152468
Stop pretending to be me. It's not amusing.

>>1152463
No. Fucking. Way.

Alright, there was a girl named...shit...Sarah Brown, I think. Glasses. Brown hair. Sat with a red-head whose name I can't remember.

Um...there was also a Bi kid in our class, and the president of the Libertarian club.

>>1152457
>>1152463
>>1152477
Anyways, I'm posting with this tripcode now.

Second floor of Dennison, right? Or third, I can't remember.

>>1152484
3rd, I think, because I remember having to walk a shit-ton of fucking stairs.

341 and 345?

I think it was at...1pm, monday, wednesday, and thursday?

>>1152483
Don't know about the bi kid, but I was gonna mention the red head. Also, funny you mention her, cause I was going to ask her out until I found out she had a boyfriend.

Email me dude. Seriously.

>>1152484
Both of you should.

>>1152477
>>1152484

>>1152475
>interstate commerce laws
>some bullshit ruling about corn

Wow, the stupidity is strong with this one

Her being Sarah, not the red head. That was a guy. :P

>>1152503
Lol, I emailed you.

I was going to ask her out too. She lived in...Berseley?

>>1152503
>>1152508
Totally not samefag.

>>1152508
>>1152503
can you guys cyber somewhere else please?

>>1152508
Yeah she did.

I'm guessing that 90% of the weed legalization discussion was from that one fag over 3 or 4 proxies.

>>1152513
Sure thing brah.

>>1152515
What are the odds...

So, you live in Baits I, that means that there was this short brown-haired girl in your math group, right?

>>1152525
Let's continue this in the email.

>thread starts about weed
>then libertarianism vs. democracy
>then trolling
>then 2 anon randomly hook up
What?

>>1152546
haha, downhill right from the start.

>>1152546

Ah, young love!

At least something good came out of this. <3

The power of trolling can do everything.